Condemnation & Eminent Domain
Chambers USA: Real Estate: Zoning/Land Use (Texas), 2021-2024
Vinson & Elkins’ Condemnation practice has represented property owners and governmental entities in state and federal eminent domain cases for 62 years. Experienced in every type of condemnation dispute, our lawyers strive to help property owners achieve their objective, whether it be maximizing compensation or challenging the government’s right to take the property, at a competitive, results-based fee.
The Legal 500 US: Real Estate – Land Use/Zoning, 2022-2024
The Legal 500 US: Real Estate – Construction: Including Construction Litigation, 2018-2024
Widespread Scope
V&E has tried numerous precedent-setting condemnation, inverse condemnation, and regulatory takings cases in state and federal courts. These involve takings for all types of projects, including highways, rail, drainage and flood control projects, parks, schools, sports arenas, energy and utility plants, strategic petroleum reserves, electric transmission lines, telecommunications lines, and pipelines. We work to protect properties of all sizes and uses, including residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, educational, religious, and vacant land. In addition to representing property owners, we also represent entities with the power of eminent domain, including pipeline and utility companies, among others.
Advocacy & Strategy
Our team assists clients at all stages of a condemnation case, including pre-condemnation planning, strategy, negotiations, mediations, jury trials, and appeals. Our lawyers are skilled advocates who regularly work with real estate appraisers, land planners, engineers, real estate brokers, and other land use professionals to build effective arguments in order to seek to maximize the property owner’s compensation at both the trial and appellate levels.
Our team can assist with all types of condemnation & eminent domain cases. If you’d like to speak with one of our attorneys about a case, please fill out this form.
Experience Highlights
Jury verdict in 2018 for $28.9 million, 2,223% above State’s offer of $1.3 million in a partial takings case for the Grand Parkway; the State took 40 acres out of a 613 acre tract being developed as a residential subdivision in Harris County, Texas, resulting in development changes yielding a lower value; this is believed to be the largest jury verdict for a property owner in a condemnation case ever in the State of Texas (The Texas Lawbook, February 7, 2018); the State appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the property owner; subsequently, the Texas Supreme Court denied the State’s petition for review
Jury verdict of $1.95 million, 1,005% above County’s First Offer – Lead counsel in a jury trial involving a partial taking of property developed and operated by a trucking company in Houston, Texas, which was condemned for Harris County’s Hardy Toll Road Extension Project; the trial resulted in a final judgment of $2.2 million on an original offer of $177,000; Harris County voluntarily dismissed its appeal
Jury verdict in 2017 for $11.5 million, 426% above State’s offer of $2.7 million –in a partial takings case for the Grand Parkway for the owner of retail pad sites in front of a big-box shopping center in Montgomery County, Texas; the State appealed and then dismissed its appeal
Jury verdict of $6.1 million, a 283% increase in Compensation to Client – Lead counsel in a jury trial resulting in a judgment for a large grocery company related to the State’s condemnation of a part of the client’s retail development for construction of the Grand Parkway in Montgomery County, Texas; the trial resulted in a final judgment of $6.3 million on an original offer of $1.2 million
2016 Combined Jury verdicts of $19.4 million, 292% above State’s Combined Initial Offer – Combined jury trial verdicts for 100% of the compensation sought in single consolidated trial involving two commercial reserve parcels owned by the same entity taken for the Grand Parkway in Harris County, Texas; the Judgment was affirmed by the Houston 1st Court of Appeals in State v. Gleannloch Commercial Development, LP, 585 S.W.3d 509 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.], pet. denied)
Jury verdict of $13.2 million, 367% above State’s Compensation Offer – Jury trial verdict 40% above the property owner’s own appraisal value; the client was the owner/developer of the commercial reserves fronting a large master-planned residential development, portions of which were taken for the Grand Parkway in Harris County, Texas; the Judgment was affirmed by the Houston 14th Court of Appeals in State v. Gleannloch Commercial Development, LP, 2017 WL 6559745 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 8, 2018, pet. denied)
Jury verdict of $11.6 million, an increase of 351% above the County’s trial appraisal – Jury trial verdict equivalent to compensation sought by property owners at trial for the taking of a 42-acre tract for a detention pond in Harris County. The verdict was affirmed by the Houston Fourteenth Court of Appeals and the County’s petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court was denied
Settlement for a major fast food restaurant owner against the State, resulting in a final judgment of $2.2 million where no compensation was initially offered by the State
Settlement for a property owner in a partial taking by the state to widen West Loop 610 North, resulting in a final judgment of $2.9 million on an initial offer of zero
Settlement for a mall owner in a consolidated case following the partial taking by the State to widen U.S. 290, resulting in a final judgment of $32.0 million, an increase of 3,191% above the State’s offer of $972,000
Settlement for a major chain department store owner in a consolidated case following the partial taking by the State to widen U.S. 290, resulting in a final judgment of $31 million, an increase of 276% above the initial offer of $8.2 million
Settlement for a property owner in a whole taking by the state to widen West Loop 610 North, resulting in a net recovery of $12.4 million on an original offer of $7.3 million (settlement counsel, monetary damages)
Settlement for a property owner in a whole taking by the state to widen West Loop 610 North, resulting in a net final judgment of $8.7 million on an initial offer of $5.4 million
Jury verdict 215% above the State’s offer for the owner of a shopping center in the State’s partial taking to widen the Katy Freeway, resulting in a judgment of $9.5 million on an original offer of $4.4 million; the State appealed and then dismissed its appeal
Jury trial for the owner of a private mini storage facility in the state’s partial taking to widen the Katy Freeway, resulting in a net recovery of $5.3 million on an original offer of $2.2 million (trial counsel, monetary damages)
Jury trial for the owner of an office building in the state’s taking of a strip of land and closing of a driveway, resulting in net recovery to the client of $2 million, on an original offer by the state of $90,000 (trial counsel, monetary damages)
Jury verdict 400% above the United States’ first offer for ranch owners for taking of a dune preserve for expansion of the Guadalupe Mountains National Park by U.S. Department of Interior, resulting in a final judgment of $2 million, a 400% increase over the United State’s initial offer of $300,000
Bench trial for a fast food owner in partial taking, resulting in a net recovery to the client of $1 million, on an original offer by the state of $140,000
Settlement for a property owner operating grocery store in a partial taking case involving lost parking, resulting in a final judgment of $6.3 million, with no offer of compensation by State
Settlement for a property owner operating a private school in a partial taking case, resulting in a final judgment of $5.3 million on the State’s offer of $700,000
Settlement for a property owner against a pipeline company, after a temporary injunction hearing, resulting in a judgment $3 million, with no offer of compensation by the pipeline company
Settlement for the owner of an automobile dealership for taking of a strip of land by the State, resulting in a judgment of $1.33 million, a 1,272% increase on an original offer of $105,000