{"id":16285,"date":"2026-08-03T13:35:48","date_gmt":"2026-08-03T18:35:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?p=16285"},"modified":"2026-08-03T13:35:48","modified_gmt":"2026-08-03T18:35:48","slug":"texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/08\/03\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\/","title":{"rendered":"Texas Supreme Court Rules on Right to Sue State to Repurchase Land Taken Through Eminent Domain"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Texas Supreme Court recently\u00a0issued\u00a0an important\u00a0<\/span>decision<\/span><\/a>\u00a0in\u00a0<\/span>State of Texas v. JRJ Pusok Holdings, LLC<\/span><\/i>, answering the question of whether a landowner may sue the\u00a0State to repurchase property when a\u00a0portion\u00a0of the condemned property is no longer necessary for public use.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Rural Highway \/ Photo via Evelyn Okay via Unsplash<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Background<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Three landowners owned property in Tomball, Texas.\u00a0\u00a0In October 2013, the State notified the landowners\u00a0that\u00a0it intended to\u00a0acquire\u00a0their property for a highway project.\u00a0\u00a0As required by law, the State provided the landowners with a monetary offer of $496,120, the Landowner Bill of\u00a0Rights, and\u00a0a copy of the Texas Property Code Chapter 21, which governs eminent domain proceedings.\u00a0\u00a0The Landowner Bill of Rights provides that if property is condemned and then the public use for which it was acquired is\u00a0canceled,\u00a0or no actual progress is made towards the project or the project becomes unnecessary within 10 years, the landowners may have the right to repurchase the property for the price paid to the owner by the\u00a0condemner\u00a0at the time the land was taken through eminent domain.\u00a0\u00a0The landowners\u00a0subsequently\u00a0received a final offer from the State, which they did not accept.\u00a0\u00a0In April 2014, the State petitioned for condemnation by\u00a0initiating\u00a0suit\u00a0in Harris County.\u00a0\u00a0Three weeks later, the State and the landowners settled on a value of $681,705 for the condemned land.\u00a0 A special warranty deed conveyed the property to the State and provided that\u00a0the\u00a0landowners agreed not to “seek\u00a0any additional compensation, damages, attorney’s fees, or expenses from the State of Texas.”\u00a0 The State moved\u00a0to\u00a0nonsuit its condemnation petition,\u00a0and the case was dismissed.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Later, government officials decided to reroute the highway project, leaving part of the\u00a0landowners\u2019\u00a0condemned land unused.\u00a0\u00a0When asked if the State planned to use the remaining\u00a0portion\u00a0of the property, the landowners were told that\u00a0the\u00a0land was surplus, and the State refused to sell it back to the landowners.\u00a0\u00a0The landowners then assigned their rights to JRJ Pusok Holdings (“JRJ”) to pursue a repurchase claim.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Litigation<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

JRJ sued\u00a0the State of\u00a0Texas and the Department of Transportation Director,\u00a0claiming violations of\u00a0its\u00a0repurchase rights under Property Code Chapter 21.\u00a0\u00a0The State claimed sovereign immunity and lack of justiciability, and the trial court granted the State’s motion to dismiss. The Fourteenth District Court of Appeals in Houston reversed the dismissal of the repurchase claim, holding that Chapter 21\u00a0demonstrates\u00a0the State’s waiver of immunity for repurchase claims.\u00a0\u00a0The Court of Appeals also held that the property was\u00a0acquired\u00a0“through eminent domain” because the State filed a condemnation action.\u00a0\u00a0The State petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for review, which was granted.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Texas Supreme Court Opinion<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Texas Supreme Court sided with JRJ on all issues in its majority\u00a0<\/span>opinion<\/span><\/a>.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Sovereign Immunity\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Sovereign immunity provides that a state cannot be sued in its own courts without consent, and even then, only by the manner\u00a0indicated\u00a0by that consent.\u00a0\u00a0Generally, to\u00a0waive immunity, consent must be found in a constitutional provision or\u00a0a legislative\u00a0enactment.\u00a0\u00a0A statutory waiver must be\u00a0effected\u00a0by clear and unambiguous language.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

History of Repurchase Right<\/span><\/i>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Texas Constitution recognizes two limits on the State’s eminent\u00a0domain\u00a0power: adequate compensation and public use.\u00a0\u00a0The Legislature provides the process for\u00a0adjudicating\u00a0the adequate\u00a0compensation the State must pay.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In 1980, there was a significant shift on the issue of condemnation and sovereign immunity when the Texas Supreme Court recognized inverse condemnation claims in\u00a0<\/span>Steele v. City of Houston<\/span><\/i>.\u00a0\u00a0The Court held that the State had no immunity against condemnation claims when it takes property via eminent domain without paying just compensation. The Court\u00a0based that decision\u00a0on the idea that the Constitution authorizes compensation for the destruction of property and is a waiver of immunity for the taking, damage, or destruction of property for public use.\u00a0\u00a0Since that time, the Court has understood the Takings Clause to authorize\u00a0suit, regardless of any statutory provision.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Next, in 2003, the Legislature created the statutory repurchase right in the Property Code.\u00a0\u00a0This right was strengthened in 2007 when Texans passed a constitutional amendment expressly\u00a0permitting\u00a0the repurchase of property at the price of acquisition. Two years later, the Constitution was amended again, further limiting the meaning of public use. In 2011, the Texas Legislature amended\u00a0Property Code Chapter 21\u00a0to set the repurchase right and price at the amount paid by the government at the time of the taking, not the current market value.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Arguments<\/span><\/i>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The State argued that the statutes confer\u00a0jurisdiction\u00a0to courts over repurchase claims but\u00a0do not grant\u00a0immunity to pursue them against the State. The State argued that the right to repurchase is a statutory right not found in the Constitution.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

JRJ disagreed and argued that the statute authorizes relief associated with a waiver of sovereign immunity, including damages, for “all issues” in which the State occupied property under the authority of eminent domain. This, JRJ argued, is consistent with the Constitution’s authorization that the State offers\u00a0a repurchase price valued as of the time of acquisition.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Holding<\/span><\/i>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

“We conclude that the State is not immune from repurchase claims.”\u00a0 First, the legislature placed the repurchase statute within the law governing eminent domain, proceedings from which the State does not enjoy immunity.\u00a0\u00a0Chapter 21\u00a0permits\u00a0district courts to “determine all issues…in any suit…in which the\u00a0State…is a party” and that involves a claim for property occupied by the State under eminent domain authority.\u00a0\u00a0As the Court previously held, “the government is not immune from claims on the ‘back end’ after it takes property without compensation.”\u00a0 The statute cannot be read consistently with the Constitution without the waiver of sovereign immunity.\u00a0\u00a0The statutory language is more than merely jurisdictional.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court then made an interesting point\u00a0regarding\u00a0profit from\u00a0eminent\u00a0domain.\u00a0\u00a0“What the State loses is any appreciation in the property’s value between the time it was condemned and the repurchase.\u00a0\u00a0But under the constitutional and statutory framework, the\u00a0<\/span>State<\/span><\/i>\u00a0was never entitled to profit from its eminent\u00a0domain\u00a0authority.\u00a0\u00a0The People amended the Constitution to\u00a0permit\u00a0the\u00a0<\/span>landowner<\/span><\/i>\u00a0to recover the loss of that profit, with supporters aiming to minimize the speculative overuse of\u00a0condemnation\u00a0authority.\u00a0\u00a0Any liability the repurchase\u00a0right creates\u00a0for the government is both limited and purposeful.”<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, the Court reasoned that the repurchase right serves “virtually no purpose\u00a0absent\u00a0the waiver of immunity.”\u00a0 The State and dissent\u00a0contend that the repurchase statute is effective even without sovereign immunity because some private actors have the authority to condemn.\u00a0\u00a0Initially, however, the repurchase\u00a0right\u00a0applied only to property\u00a0acquired\u00a0by a governmental entity, not that taken by private actors.\u00a0\u00a0Where landowners cede their property to the State’s eminent\u00a0domain\u00a0power, which is limited by the public use requirement, that same requirement carries forward in\u00a0subsequent\u00a0claims.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Repurchase Criteria\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Next, the Court considered whether JRJ’s repurchase claim met the Chapter 21 criteria.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

“Through Eminent Domain”<\/span><\/i>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The State contended it did not\u00a0acquire\u00a0the property\u00a0“through eminent domain” as required by the repurchase statute because it settled upon the condemned value with the landowners.\u00a0\u00a0Without a final judgment adjudicating the property’s value, the State claimed the property was not taken “through eminent domain.”<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The State turned to the dictionary for the definition of “through,” which means “by way of”; “passage into and out of a treatment, handling, or process” or “a\u00a0function\u00a0word to indicate means, agency, or intermediacy.”\u00a0 The\u00a0court reasoned, then, that the\u00a0definition of “eminent domain” is the “inherent power of a governmental entity to take privately owned property, especially land, and convert it to public use, subject to reasonable compensation for the\u00a0taking.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Thus, the Court\u00a0wrote,\u00a0the logical reading of “through eminent domain” is “by means of the State’s power to take private property for public use.”\u00a0 The State’s reading would require the Court to swap the term “eminent domain” with “condemnation judgment.”\u00a0\u00a0Eminent domain is not the process the\u00a0State goes through;\u00a0it is the State’s power.\u00a0 A settlement as to the property’s value does not alter the acquisition of it “through eminent domain.”\u00a0 The deed in this case\u00a0indicated\u00a0that\u00a0the landowners conveyed\u00a0the land\u00a0because of the pending\u00a0eminent domain proceedings.\u00a0\u00a0The landowners did not sell the\u00a0property\u00a0on the open market to an arms-length buyer; rather, they surrendered their\u00a0property\u00a0in concession to the State’s power.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

“Once the state invokes its eminent domain power, landowners need not proceed to a judgment as to adequate compensation to preserve their repurchase\u00a0right.\u00a0\u00a0The State’s forced transfer via a condemnation suit is an exercise of its power to obtain the property “through eminent domain.”<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Portion\u00a0of the Property<\/span><\/i>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The State claimed that Chapter 21 was inapplicable when only a\u00a0portion\u00a0of the property–not the entire property–is no longer necessary for public use.\u00a0\u00a0The State pointed to the repurchase right referring to “the property,” pointing out it does not\u00a0permit\u00a0repurchase of a\u00a0<\/span>portion\u00a0of<\/span><\/i>\u00a0the property.\u00a0\u00a0But, as the Court noted, neither does it refer to repurchase of “the entire property.” A\u00a0portion\u00a0of the property is accurately described as “property.”<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Here, the State used 97% of the condemned property for the highway.\u00a0\u00a0The remaining 3% became surplus within 10 years of its acquisition.\u00a0\u00a0Once the\u00a0State\u00a0determines\u00a0that property\u00a0is no longer\u00a0required\u00a0for public use, as it did here, it must notify the landowner of the repurchase\u00a0right.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The State then argued it was difficult to\u00a0determine\u00a0a price for a partial repurchase.\u00a0\u00a0“We are not persuaded,” wrote the Court.\u00a0\u00a0The State offered to sell the 3% for\u00a0fair market value, which\u00a0indicates\u00a0it is possible to value the land. The State can use the statutory directive setting the repurchase price as the price paid to the owner at\u00a0time\u00a0it was\u00a0acquired.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Jurisdiction<\/span><\/i>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Lastly, the Court held that Chapter 21 gives district courts and county courts of law concurrent\u00a0jurisdiction\u00a0in eminent domain cases, and a repurchase claim is, in fact, an eminent domain case.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/span><\/i>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Thus, the Texas Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals\u2019 judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Concurring Opinion<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Justice Young filed a\u00a0<\/span>concurring opinion<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 He agreed with\u00a0the Court’s determination that sovereign immunity is waived as to repurchase claims.\u00a0\u00a0He wrote separately because he believes that\u00a0determining\u00a0whether a statute waives sovereign immunity can and should be simpler than prior decisions suggest.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

First, he noted\u00a0that the legislature’s intent to waive sovereign immunity must be clearly\u00a0stated. “If sovereign immunity is waived, it is because the legislature\u00a0<\/span>clearly<\/span><\/i>\u00a0waived it–not because a court has read a waiver into a statute in a way that the legislature can later plausibly disclaim.”<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Second, it is the Court’s job to interpret the statute based on the text, context, and legislative history, to\u00a0determine\u00a0if the required clarity is present.\u00a0\u00a0While an express waiver is the easiest way, it is not the only way the legislature can meet the clear\u00a0indication\u00a0of waiver. “Requiring clarity is not the same as requiring formulaic or magic words.”<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Third, applying this standard here,\u00a0he found\u00a0it is clear the legislature’s waiver of sovereign immunity in repurchase cases was “manifest, albeit not ‘express,’ from the start.”<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Fourth, he did not find it necessary to address other considerations included in the majority opinion.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Dissenting Opinion<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Justice Hawkins authored a\u00a0<\/span>dissenting opinion<\/span><\/a>\u00a0which was joined by Justice Sullivan and Chief Justice Blacklock and was\u00a0actually lengthier\u00a0than the majority opinion.\u00a0\u00a0For the sake of space and time, we are including only a high-level summary below.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The dissent said that the\u00a0majority\u00a0finds\u00a0waiver of\u00a0immunity for repurchase claims despite “containing none of the statutory indicia that traditionally signal the waiver of immunity.”\u00a0\u00a0It does not mention “waiver,” and it does not require the State’s participation in a case.\u00a0 The\u00a0majority\u00a0admits the statutory scheme would still have some effect–in cases where property was taken by private actors–without the waiver of immunity.\u00a0\u00a0Instead, the\u00a0majority\u00a0turns\u00a0to the constitutional backdrop, the broader statutory context, and practical concerns to hold that immunity is waived.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The good news, the dissent wrote, is that today’s decision is limited to this\u00a0particular statutory\u00a0provision and its unique considerations, including the constitutional backdrop that makes it differ from every other statutory right.\u00a0\u00a0This decision has no impact on any other\u00a0statutes.\u00a0\u00a0Regardless, the dissenting justices believed it was wrongly decided and would have issued judgment for the State dismissing the claim.\u00a0\u00a0From a policy perspective, the dissent\u00a0warned,\u00a0courts have no business letting claims\u00a0proceed\u00a0against a state absent unmistakably clear immunity waivers because taxpayer dollars and separation-of-powers principles are on the line.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Additionally, the dissent would find that even were sovereign immunity waived, the property was not\u00a0acquired\u00a0“through eminent domain,” a necessary requirement for the statutory repurchase right to apply.\u00a0\u00a0Instead, the dissent wrote, this property “was acquired through a privately negotiated and mutually agreed upon sale, not eminent domain.”\u00a0 The dissent pointed\u00a0to language in the special warranty deed that says the property is conveyed “in order to avoid eminent domain proceedings…” as showing the acquisition was\u00a0in order to\u00a0avoid, not complete, eminent domain.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Lastly, the dissent believed\u00a0the case should be dismissed because it was improperly filed in the county court at law, not the district court.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

What Happens Next?<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The case will be remanded back to the trial court.\u00a0\u00a0Because sovereign immunity is waived and the property was taken through eminent domain, the trial court will\u00a0proceed\u00a0with JRJ\u2019s lawsuit against the State.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This decision is significant for\u00a0Texas landowners for\u00a0several\u00a0reasons:<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Landowners may file suit against the\u00a0State to repurchase property taken through eminent domain and not used for that purpose.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
      \n
    1. This right to repurchase is available not only to landowners whose case resulted in a condemnation award by the court, but also to landowners against whom condemnation proceedings were filed and then settled.\u00a0\u00a0I do think the question of whether this right is available to landowners who received and accepted an offer under the threat of eminent domain prior to a court action being filed\u00a0remains\u00a0unclear in this opinion.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
        \n
      1. If land is taken by eminent domain and only a\u00a0portion\u00a0of the land is used for the designated public use, the\u00a0landowner\u00a0has the right to repurchase the unused\u00a0portion\u00a0of the land.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
          \n
        1. County courts at law have concurrent jurisdiction with district courts to hear repurchase claims.\u00a0 This means landowners can file\u00a0suit\u00a0in either court.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

           <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

          The Texas Supreme Court recently\u00a0issued\u00a0an important\u00a0decision\u00a0in\u00a0State of Texas v. JRJ Pusok Holdings, LLC, answering the question of whether a landowner may sue the\u00a0State to repurchase property when a\u00a0portion\u00a0of the condemned property is no longer necessary for public use.\u00a0   Background\u00a0 Three landowners owned property in Tomball, Texas.\u00a0\u00a0In October 2013, the State notified the landowners\u00a0that\u00a0it intended to\u00a0acquire\u00a0their property for a highway project.\u00a0\u00a0As required by law, the State provided the landowners with a monetary offer of $496,120, the Landowner Bill of\u00a0Rights, and\u00a0a copy of the Texas Property Code Chapter 21,… Read More →<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2444,"featured_media":16378,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16285","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-eminent-domain","category-texas-supreme-court-decisions"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nTexas Supreme Court Rules on Right to Sue State to Repurchase Land Taken Through Eminent Domain - Texas Agriculture Law<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/08\/03\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Texas Supreme Court Rules on Right to Sue State to Repurchase Land Taken Through Eminent Domain - Texas Agriculture Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Texas Supreme Court recently\u00a0issued\u00a0an important\u00a0decision\u00a0in\u00a0State of Texas v. JRJ Pusok Holdings, LLC, answering the question of whether a landowner may sue the\u00a0State to repurchase property when a\u00a0portion\u00a0of the condemned property is no longer necessary for public use.\u00a0   Background\u00a0 Three landowners owned property in Tomball, Texas.\u00a0\u00a0In October 2013, the State notified the landowners\u00a0that\u00a0it intended to\u00a0acquire\u00a0their property for a highway project.\u00a0\u00a0As required by law, the State provided the landowners with a monetary offer of $496,120, the Landowner Bill of\u00a0Rights, and\u00a0a copy of the Texas Property Code Chapter 21,... Read More →\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/08\/03\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Texas Agriculture Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-03T18:35:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2026\/07\/evelyn-okay-IPBWBCLp03E-unsplash-scaled.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1714\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"tiffany.dowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@tiffdowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@tiffdowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"tiffany.dowell\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":[\"Article\",\"BlogPosting\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/03\\\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/03\\\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"tiffany.dowell\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73\"},\"headline\":\"Texas Supreme Court Rules on Right to Sue State to Repurchase Land Taken Through Eminent Domain\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-03T18:35:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/03\\\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2442,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/03\\\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/evelyn-okay-IPBWBCLp03E-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Eminent Domain\",\"Texas Supreme Court Decisions\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/03\\\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/03\\\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\\\/\",\"name\":\"Texas Supreme Court Rules on Right to Sue State to Repurchase Land Taken Through Eminent Domain - Texas Agriculture Law\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/03\\\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/03\\\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/evelyn-okay-IPBWBCLp03E-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-03T18:35:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/03\\\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/03\\\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/03\\\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/evelyn-okay-IPBWBCLp03E-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/evelyn-okay-IPBWBCLp03E-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":1714,\"caption\":\"Photo via Evelyn Okay via Unsplash\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/08\\\/03\\\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Texas Supreme Court Rules on Right to Sue State to Repurchase Land Taken Through Eminent Domain\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\",\"name\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\",\"description\":\"Teaching, Research, Extension and Service\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg\",\"width\":400,\"height\":400,\"caption\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/texasaglaw\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/tiffdowell\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/tiffany-dowell-lashmet-0a718778\\\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73\",\"name\":\"tiffany.dowell\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/author\\\/tiffany-dowell\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Texas Supreme Court Rules on Right to Sue State to Repurchase Land Taken Through Eminent Domain - Texas Agriculture Law","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/08\/03\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Texas Supreme Court Rules on Right to Sue State to Repurchase Land Taken Through Eminent Domain - Texas Agriculture Law","og_description":"The Texas Supreme Court recently\u00a0issued\u00a0an important\u00a0decision\u00a0in\u00a0State of Texas v. JRJ Pusok Holdings, LLC, answering the question of whether a landowner may sue the\u00a0State to repurchase property when a\u00a0portion\u00a0of the condemned property is no longer necessary for public use.\u00a0   Background\u00a0 Three landowners owned property in Tomball, Texas.\u00a0\u00a0In October 2013, the State notified the landowners\u00a0that\u00a0it intended to\u00a0acquire\u00a0their property for a highway project.\u00a0\u00a0As required by law, the State provided the landowners with a monetary offer of $496,120, the Landowner Bill of\u00a0Rights, and\u00a0a copy of the Texas Property Code Chapter 21,... Read More →","og_url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/08\/03\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\/","og_site_name":"Texas Agriculture Law","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw","article_published_time":"2026-08-03T18:35:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":1714,"url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2026\/07\/evelyn-okay-IPBWBCLp03E-unsplash-scaled.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"tiffany.dowell","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@tiffdowell","twitter_site":"@tiffdowell","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"tiffany.dowell","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":["Article","BlogPosting"],"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/08\/03\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/08\/03\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\/"},"author":{"name":"tiffany.dowell","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/person\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73"},"headline":"Texas Supreme Court Rules on Right to Sue State to Repurchase Land Taken Through Eminent Domain","datePublished":"2026-08-03T18:35:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/08\/03\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\/"},"wordCount":2442,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/08\/03\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2026\/07\/evelyn-okay-IPBWBCLp03E-unsplash-scaled.jpg","articleSection":["Eminent Domain","Texas Supreme Court Decisions"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/08\/03\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\/","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/08\/03\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\/","name":"Texas Supreme Court Rules on Right to Sue State to Repurchase Land Taken Through Eminent Domain - Texas Agriculture Law","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/08\/03\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/08\/03\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2026\/07\/evelyn-okay-IPBWBCLp03E-unsplash-scaled.jpg","datePublished":"2026-08-03T18:35:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/08\/03\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/08\/03\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/08\/03\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2026\/07\/evelyn-okay-IPBWBCLp03E-unsplash-scaled.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2026\/07\/evelyn-okay-IPBWBCLp03E-unsplash-scaled.jpg","width":2560,"height":1714,"caption":"Photo via Evelyn Okay via Unsplash"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/08\/03\/texas-supreme-court-rules-on-right-to-sue-state-to-repurchase-land-taken-through-eminent-domain\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Texas Supreme Court Rules on Right to Sue State to Repurchase Land Taken Through Eminent Domain"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#website","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/","name":"Texas Agriculture Law","description":"Teaching, Research, Extension and Service","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization","name":"Texas Agriculture Law","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2023\/12\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2023\/12\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg","width":400,"height":400,"caption":"Texas Agriculture Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw","https:\/\/x.com\/tiffdowell","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/tiffany-dowell-lashmet-0a718778\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/person\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73","name":"tiffany.dowell","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/author\/tiffany-dowell\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16285","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2444"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16285"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16285\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16389,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16285\/revisions\/16389"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/16378"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16285"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16285"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16285"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}