Fortunately they have Ken Paxton...

Link

https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...3pdf/22-913_3204.pdf

Here is the case of anyone wants to read it.

And Paxton is lying. The decision was 9-0 thst Texas could be sued by the citizen for a taking of property wo just compensation.

The Court of Appeals decision was remanded to allow the citizens to sue Texas under the state law that permits just compensation and the Taking Clause of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.

The Court of Appeals had held Texas could not be sued under the Taking Clause. That is now vacated and overturned with instructions.

I believe the complaint will now be sent to state court.

Texas losing at the Supreme Court awful lot. A lot of wasted tax dollars, but he is a Republican. Thus he is good.

The Majority did not resolve the question of whether the Taking Clause itself creates a federal action. Pages 5-6 clearly say, “ We do not need to resolve the question.” The question is whether the Taking Clause created an action for Federal Court.

The real question and the big question they punt on.

This is because Texas state law provides both a cause of action and remedy.

Unfortunately we have the Trifecta of stupid in Texas, Abbott, Paxton and Patrick.

The case is only 9 pages. That is officially the shortest case I have ever seen by the Supreme Court. It will not make any law caselaw text books.

Everyone should read it.

Come on Texas Nationalist Contingent, read the opinion.

I read it.

I don’t get how the state is taking land in the first place, and how much they are asking for here… but it seems that SCOTUS says that since the landowners have a legal remedy under Texas law they need to exercise that rather than go to federal law… or did I misread it?

So that the state decided to place a barrier to keep a flood evacuation route open, the plaintiffs feel they are owed damages because they decided to place it on the road?

Seems to me, the argument is with the hurricane, not with where Texas put the barrier… but then I’m not a plaintiff’s lawyer.

Well, the taking is not at issue.

That is what the trial is for.

The point of Texas can be sued for the resins I stated above.

Texas was trying to keep this from trial. Texas lost.

Oh, and it is a taking. When the government excludes you from any inch of tire land, you have a taking (generally).

The Supreme Court does not answer the question of whether there is a fed cause of action created by the Taking Clause.
Meet the quotes above.

I must be dense.

The state put up a traffic divider on the median… not the landowner’s property… with the intent of keeping the road open for flood evacuation.

The state did not put the water there… heck as I understand western water rights that water was either the landowners or the upstream landowners water.

The flood water will go where it will, the state didn’t put it there, they apparently stopped it from draining over the road…

If they flooded land to make it a wetland then yes, they took the property… but failing to prevent flooding isn’t taking land or property, it’s an act of god.

I’m not arguing against that the trial court gets to decide if there was a taking.

I thought while SCOTUS didn’t rule on if it was a taking, they did effectively state that the state law was dominant here. They said that this could be determined in state court.

I gave you the quoted language and page.

They do not say state law is dominate.

They says we have a state law remedy. This, we need not answer the question as to the Taking Clsyde creating a federal claim. They punted.

The barriers equal a taking so compensation. The trial court will decide if there was a taking now the S.Ct., has cleared a path for the matter to be tried.

General Rule, when the government takes or uses an inch of your land. That is a taking that requires compensation. The barrier excludes possession of land from the owner by the government.

The land didn't flood, drowning livestock, before the barrier was built.

The quoted decision said that the land was subject to flooding at times.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
The land didn't flood, drowning livestock, before the barrier was built.

I think the implication is that the state law is dominant, or else the court would have to rule re the federal claim filed in federal court, wouldn't they? They could return it to US District court, but they really don't have any say re state law unless it interferes with US law? How could they boot a case filed in federal court under federal law to the state otherwise ( 9th/10th/11th amendment decisions)

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I gave you the quoted language and page.

They do not say state law is dominate.

They says we have a state law remedy. This, we need not answer the question as to the Taking Clsyde creating a federal claim. They punted.

The barriers equal a taking so compensation. The trial court will decide if there was a taking now the S.Ct., has cleared a path for the matter to be tried.

General Rule, when the government takes or uses an inch of your land. That is a taking that requires compensation. The barrier excludes possession of land from the owner by the government.

That is not the implication. The case even says so.

Page 6 first full paragraph refutes your asserted implication.

The implication is if Texas had not provided a state remedy, the Taking Clause of the 5th Amendment would provide the remedy.

I cannot copy and last from the opinion. I am not going to retype page 6 more than I have always done so, but it is page 6.

Our precedent does not clearly answer the question. We do not need to resolve the question.

That is because Texas law provided a remedy. The Court took no position on the Federal Question.

Page 6: The absence of a case does not prove the 5th Amendment Taking Clause that there is no (federal) cause of action.

Your implication is refuted by the text of the case.

No. It said that they cannot pass judgement as long as there was a remedy that addressed the takings clause concerns under state law. They stated that until the state law violated the takings clause, they were not going to intervene.

I don’t disagree that they said they could get involved, but they pretty obviously were saying that if the state has a remedy that satisfies that constitutional right.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
That is not the implication. The case even says so.

Page 6 first full paragraph refutes your asserted implication.

The implication is if Texas had not provided a state remedy, the Taking Clause of the 5th Amendment would provide the remedy.

I cannot copy and last from the opinion. I am not going to retype page 6 more than I have always done so, but it is page 6.

Our precedent does not clearly answer the question. We do not need to resolve the question.

That is because Texas law provided a remedy. The Court took no position on the Federal Question.

Page 6: The absence of a case does not prove the 5th Amendment Taking Clause that there is no (federal) cause of action.

Your implication is refuted by the text of the case.

That is not what they says. I quoted the language.

They said they did not need to. Not that they could not.