# Westgate, Ltd. v. State

> Texas Supreme Court · December 2, 1992 · 36 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 282

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9759559

## Case

- **Full name:** WESTGATE, LTD., Robert L. Randolph, Bank One, and Deposit Insurance Bridge Bank, Petitioners, v. STATE OF Texas and City of Austin, Respondents
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 2, 1992
- **Citations:** 36 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 282; 843 S.W.2d 448; 1992 Tex. LEXIS 160; 1992 WL 353292
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Doggett
- **Judges:** Phillips, Mauzy, Motion, Doggett, Gammage
- **Cited by:** 253 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9759559

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the three jury questions required under Carpenter for partial takings cases “should be reduced to two questions: first, the market value of the part taken, considered as severed land, and second, damages to the remainder, accompanied by an instruction that such da…
- recognizing that “publicly targeting a property for condemnation, resulting in economic damage to the owner, generally does not give rise to an inverse condemnation cause of action unless there is some direct restriction on use of the property.”
- stating that an inverse condemnation or ‘taking’ action is available to compensate a property owner for a loss resulting when his property has been taken or damaged for public use without compensation or a condemnation proceeding
- explaining that this form of submission is appropriate in cases where the part taken is difficult to value as severed land and there is no evidence that the condemnation increased the remainder's value
- describing reasons for remand in interests of justice as including “where we overrule existing precedents on which the losing party relied at trial,” “where it appears from the record that the losing party might be able to recover under some other established legal theory that…

## Opinion text

DISSENT ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Dec. 2, 1992.
DOGGETT, Justice.
In its further writing on rehearing, the majority has failed to address the most far-reaching of the misinterpretations reflected in its previous writing. One of these is the majority’s turn away from broad form submission which has unfortunately become part of a broad scale abandonment of this principle. See H.E.B. Grocery Co. v. Warner, 845 S.W.2d 258, 260 (Tex.1992) (Mauzy, J., dissenting); State Dept. of Highways & Pub. Transp. v. Payne, 838 S.W.2d 235, 241 (Tex.1992) (Mauzy, J., dissenting); Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262, 268 (Tex.1992) (Mauzy, J., dissenting).
MAUZY, J., joins in this dissent on motion for rehearing.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9759559. Public record. Not legal advice.