We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
During its 2011 Regular Session, the Texas Legislature passed
Senate Bill 18, which included a provision requiring each entity
vested with the power of condemnation to provide certain
information to the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts.
The information must be submitted by December 31, 2012, or
the entity's power to condemn will expire.
Senate Bill 18 added Section 2206.101 to the Texas Government
Code. That section requires all entities—both public and
private—that are vested with the power of eminent domain
to send to the Comptroller a letter stating that the entity has
eminent domain authority and identifying the state law that gives
the entity that authority. The information must be submitted no
later than December 31, 2012, and must be sent by certified mail.
If an entity does not make the required submission, then its
authority to exercise the power of eminent domain expires on
September 1, 2013.
Senate Bill 18 also implemented numerous changes in the law
governing the exercise of the power of condemnation. Among other
things, the statute establishes specific requirements for the
negotiation process, requires the disclosure of certain information
to landowners from whom an entity seeks to acquire property,
specifies steps entities must take to authorize and initiate
condemnation proceedings, extends the condemnation timeline, and
modifies the factors that can be considered in determining just
compensation.
Andrews Kurth has an experienced team of lawyers who can assist
with making the appropriate filing with the Comptroller's
office and with navigating the new eminent domain landscape arising
from Senate Bill 18.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
On March 30, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision imposing certain socio-economic contract requirements on subcontractors operating hospitals associated with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Centers.
The Department of Defense has issued a new instruction that establishes internal DOD policies for detecting, avoiding, and remediating counterfeit parts in the DOD supply chain, and allocates responsibility among various DOD offices and functions for administering or developing those counterfeit prevention policies.
The Supreme Court of the United States has recently issued a unanimous decision upholding citizen-specific limitations in the State of Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act.
In 1997, the Virginia Supreme Court sent a chill down the spines of many companies operating under teaming agreements with a Virginia choice of law provision. In W.J. Schafer Associates, Inc. v. Cordant, Inc., 493 S.E. 2d 514 (Va. 1997), that court held a teaming agreement to be unenforceable on the ground that "agreements to agree in the future" are "too vague and too indefinite to be enforced."
