{"id":16317,"date":"2026-07-06T01:57:14","date_gmt":"2026-07-06T06:57:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?p=16317"},"modified":"2026-07-06T09:47:05","modified_gmt":"2026-07-06T14:47:05","slug":"texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/07\/06\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\/","title":{"rendered":"Texas Supreme Court Opinion Addresses Scope of Easement by Estoppel"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Texas Supreme Court recently issued an important\u00a0<\/span>opinion<\/span><\/a>\u00a0in\u00a0<\/span>Boerschig\u00a0v. Rio Grande Electric Cooperative\u00a0<\/span><\/i>with regard to\u00a0implied electrical line easements and the scope thereof.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Photo by David Leveque on Unsplash<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

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

In 1945, ranchers in Southwest Texas formed a non-profit Rio Grande Electric Cooperative (RGEC) to provide electricity to Co-op members in rural areas.\u00a0\u00a0RGEC has condemnation authority and now serves eighteen counties in Texas and two counties in New Mexico.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In 1947, RGEC acquired a document titled \u201cRight of Way Easement\u201d that gave an unspecified corporation the right to place, construct,\u00a0<\/span>operate<\/span>,\u00a0repair, maintain, relocate, and replace an electric transmission distribution line or system on\u00a05,684 acres\u00a0owned by the Clamp estate.\u00a0\u00a0The document provided that only single poles and appurtenances to form the lease possible interference with farming operations, so long as it does not materially increase the cost of construction.\u00a0\u00a0The document was signed by Ogden Dooley, the executor of the estate, but was never recorded in\u00a0the real\u00a0property records.\u00a0\u00a0Shortly after that, RGEC built an electric distribution line crossing 1.6 miles of the tract described in the document.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In 2002, John Boerschig bought the U-Bar ranch in Kinney, which includes the Clamp estate property.\u00a0\u00a0The line could be seen on the property and was marked on a survey prepared for\u00a0Boerschig\u2019s\u00a0purchase.\u00a0\u00a0In 2021, RGEC notified\u00a0Boerschig\u00a0it planned to bulldoze part of the easement, upgrade the line, and move a\u00a0portion\u00a0of the line.\u00a0\u00a0Boerschig\u00a0asked RGEC for a copy of the applicable easement.\u00a0\u00a0It produced several express easements but\u00a0none\u00a0that covered the route at issue.\u00a0\u00a0He offered RGEC the right to buy a second easement to build a line elsewhere on his property, but RGEC refused.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Boerschig\u00a0sued RGEC for\u00a0trespass.\u00a0\u00a0RGEC filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that RGEC had a valid express easement or, alternatively, had obtained a prescriptive easement or an easement by estoppel. It attached a copy of the Dooley signed document that was found in RGEC files after the dispute began.\u00a0\u00a0Boerschig\u00a0had never seen the document.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The parties agreed to allow construction of the line on the same footprint of the original line during the litigation, subject to\u00a0Boerschig\u00a0reserving his pending trespass claim.\u00a0\u00a0The new line was completed in 2014 and included 60 poles rising 37 feet in the air and carrying 7 wires on 2 crossarms.\u00a0\u00a0(The prior line included 20 polls, 30 feet above the ground carrying 4 wires on 1 crossarm.)<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Lower Court Decisions<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The case went to a jury trial.\u00a0\u00a0Boerschig\u00a0testified that the new poles interfered with his farming, ranching, and hunting operations.\u00a0\u00a0It made it more difficult to pull equipment with his tractors, he stopped haying one field because there\u00a0were\u00a0\u00a06\u00a0poles where previously\u00a0there had only been\u00a01,\u00a0and his\u00a0foreman\u00a0testified he saw cows collide with the poles and fewer deer congregating around\u00a0them.\u00a0\u00a0Boerschig\u00a0called the new line an \u201ceyesore\u201d and testified it decreased the value of his property.\u00a0\u00a0RGEC testified that there was\u00a0nothing\u00a0 in\u00a0the new line that would interfere with\u00a0Boerschig\u2019s\u00a0use of the land.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In a 10-2 verdict, the jury\u00a0found\u00a0RGEC had no written easement or easement by adverse possession.\u00a0\u00a0The jury did find, however, that RGEC had an easement by estoppel across the powerline route.\u00a0\u00a0The jury also found that the construction of the updated powerline did not exceed the scope of the easement by estoppel.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Boerschig\u00a0appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support an easement by estoppel.\u00a0\u00a0The San Antonio Court of Appeals affirmed.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

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

The Texas Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.\u00a0[Read opinion\u00a0<\/span>here<\/span><\/a>.]\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

There was sufficient evidence to find an easement by estoppel.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Generally speaking, easements\u00a0must be in writing and recorded to be legally enforceable.\u00a0 There are some types of implied easements, where the court may impose an easement if certain factors are present even though there is no written document.\u00a0\u00a0One such implied easement is an easement by estoppel.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In order for\u00a0an easement by estoppel to be granted, the person seeking the easement must show: (1) the owner of the burdened estate represented that an easement would be conveyed; (2) the easement holder believed that representation; and (3) the easement holder relied upon that representation to their detriment.\u00a0The first two elements, representation and belief are fixed at the time of transfer.\u00a0 If the reliance on the representation\u00a0terminates\u00a0later, the estoppel\u00a0terminates\u00a0as well.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The jury had evidence that the Dooley document granted an easement for an electric line, the RGEC\u2019s practice was only to build lines where it\u00a0believed\u00a0it had\u00a0an easement covering the route, RGEC built the line in 1947 and maintained it for 65 years continually and without objection.\u00a0\u00a0Boerschig\u00a0did not introduce contrary evidence at trial to dispute the representation made by the Dooley document or RGEC\u2019s reliance on it.\u00a0\u00a0Instead, he argues that the Dooley document is not sufficient evidence of a representation because it is not a valid written easement.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The court disagreed.\u00a0\u00a0\u201cA writing that fails as an express easement can be some evidence supporting the representation element of an easement by estoppel.\u201d An imperfectly memorialized written easement is relevant to show the intent of the parties.\u00a0\u00a0Several other courts, including courts in other states and two Texas appellate\u00a0courts\u00a0have reached that same conclusion.\u00a0\u00a0Further, the Dooley document provided detailed and specific use of the easement to construct and\u00a0maintain\u00a0a powerline, which RGEC did do for 65 years,\u00a0indicating\u00a0its reliance on the easement.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Boerschig\u00a0also relied on the bona fide purchaser statute, which\u00a0essentially provides\u00a0that a\u00a0subsequent\u00a0purchaser is not bound by prior instruments if they\u00a0purchase\u00a0without notice.\u00a0\u00a0The most efficient way to provide such notice is by recording encumbrances in the deed record.\u00a0\u00a0That was not done here.\u00a0\u00a0However, purchasers with actual notice of an encumbrance have no injury, even if the encumbrance was not recorded in the deed records.\u00a0\u00a0Boerschig\u00a0admitted he had actual notice of the powerline when he\u00a0purchased\u00a0the ranch both from visual inspection and the survey.\u00a0\u00a0He is presumed to have\u00a0purchased to\u00a0this property subject to the visible encumbrance.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Dooley document\u00a0constituted\u00a0evidence of a\u00a0representation,\u00a0RGEC\u2019s actions\u00a0indicated\u00a0its belief that there was a valid easement, and it relied on the representation in constructing the line and\u00a0maintaining\u00a0it for 65 years.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

RGEC\u2019s use exceeded the scope of the easement by estoppel.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Having concluded that RGEC did have an easement by estoppel, the next question was whether their use\u00a0complied with\u00a0the scope of that easement.\u00a0\u00a0Boerschig\u00a0claimed that the line upgrades exceeded the scope of the easement as a matter of law.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Scope of an easement by estoppel<\/span><\/i>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

For a written express easement, the scope is\u00a0determined\u00a0by the parties\u2019 intentions included in the granting document. The language included in the easement document governs the scope of this type of easement.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

For an easement by estoppel, however, there is no such recorded writing to rely on when\u00a0determining\u00a0the scope of an easement.\u00a0\u00a0These easements are strictly\u00a0construed\u00a0and\u00a0courts\u00a0view easements by estoppel as a last resort.\u00a0\u00a0The court noted that a person relying on an easement by estoppel \u201cruns a substantial risk that the enforcement will be either unavailable or narrower in scope that a comparable express easement.\u201d\u00a0 The purpose of an easement by estoppel, and thus the scope of such an easement, is limited to preventing injustice by protecting the easement holder\u2019s\u00a0reliance\u00a0interest.\u00a0\u00a0The scope of an easement by estoppel is fixed by the use that created it.\u00a0\u00a0In summary, the scope of an easement by estoppel is limited to the representations made by the landowner and is narrowed by the\u00a0easement holder\u2019s actual use of the easement in reasonable\u00a0reliance, and\u00a0narrowed again if the land has been subsequently sold by the purchaser\u2019s\u00a0notice\u00a0 of\u00a0the representations or uses at the time of purchase.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This means that an easement holder\u00a0seeking\u00a0to change the actual existing use must provide evidence of the landowner\u2019s specific representations about the nature and extent of the permitted use. The easement holder must also show evidence of the landowner\u2019s specific representations about the nature and extent of the permitted use. Evidence that a\u00a0subsequent\u00a0purchaser had knowledge of a current use does not\u00a0establish\u00a0knowledge that the\u00a0easement\u2019s\u00a0scope would cover a greater degree of future use.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In making this determination, the judge or jury may not\u00a0speculate about\u00a0the unexpressed purpose of an easement or whether a change was foreseeable, more burdensome, or different in type or character.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe right to own property is fundamental, natural, inherent, and inalienable and its protection is one of the most important purposes of government. Courts are not free to give away more of a landowner\u2019s property rights whenever they feel that the societal benefit of an expended use outweighs its burden on the landowner.\u00a0\u00a0That judgment is for the other branches of government and entities on which they have conferred condemning authority, and our Constitution demands that the landowner be compensated when a greater easement is taken.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

An easement by estoppel includes \u201conly activities\u2014such as access, repairs, and maintenance of the area\u2014that are reasonably necessary to fairly enjoy the usage rights defined by the representations, reliance, and knowledge.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Application\u00a0to\u00a0this Case<\/span><\/i>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

RGEC\u2019s only reliance was on the Dooley document\u2019s representation of an easement to build and\u00a0maintain\u00a0a lower voltage electric distribution line that consisted of between 17-20 poles, each standing 30 feet above ground, and carrying 4 wires on a single crossbar.\u00a0\u00a0\u201cAllowing RGEC to maintain that use is sufficient to prevent injustice.\u201d RGEC offered no evidence showing that replacing the line with many more and larger poles, wires, and crossarms\u00a0were\u00a0necessary to protect RGEC\u2019s investment and reliance on the Dooley document.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Additionally, the court considered whether\u00a0Boerschig\u00a0had actual or constructive notice of facts\u00a0indicating\u00a0that the easement would authorize RGEC to triple the number of poles and nearly double the number of wires. The only evidence of\u00a0Boerschig\u2019s\u00a0notice\u00a0was\u00a0him\u00a0seeing\u00a0the original line.\u00a0\u00a0There was\u00a0not\u00a0evidence\u00a0he had any notice\u00a0regarding\u00a0any potential increase in the scope of the easement.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Tripling the number of poles and adding\u00a0additional\u00a0wires was not an activity\u00a0reasonably necessary\u00a0to RGEC\u2019s continued use and enjoyment of the line.\u00a0\u00a0The purpose of the upgrade was to serve new customers in the future\u00a0in anticipation of future growth. No one was\u00a0seeking\u00a0to\u00a0shutdown\u00a0the line or prevent RGEC from continuing its original use and maintenance of the line.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Thus, the easement by estoppel was not broad enough to allow for\u00a0the line\u00a0upgrades. RGEC entered\u00a0Boerschig\u2019s\u00a0property and upgraded the line without his consent, which\u00a0constitutes\u00a0trespass.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Justice Hawkins wrote a\u00a0<\/span>concurring opinion<\/span><\/a>\u00a0noting that there are some close calls related to the scope of an easement and trespass that may be proper only for a jury.\u00a0\u00a0This case, however, was not one of those.\u00a0\u00a0He noted that RGEC\u2019s expansion was \u201cplainly broader than necessary to protect Rio Grande\u2019s reliance interests from its original investment in the land in the 1940s.\u201d\u00a0 Second, the expansion went beyond any notice Mr.\u00a0Boerschig\u00a0had when he\u00a0purchased\u00a0the land.\u00a0\u00a0He noted that \u201call we hold is that these particular facts go so far beyond the proper confines of an easement by estoppel that courts must find a trespass as a matter of law.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Justice Bland filed a\u00a0<\/span>dissenting opinion<\/span><\/a>\u00a0in which Chief Justice Blacklock, Justice Lehrmann, and Justice Huddle joined.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The dissent began with a review of the history surrounding rural electric cooperatives.\u00a0\u00a0The opinion then recounted\u00a0the evidence from the case including a video showing field planted only on either side of the\u00a0line\u2019s\u00a0route and no farming or haying in the area under and around the line even prior to the upgrade.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The dissent then reviewed\u00a0the burdens of proof at issue in the case.\u00a0\u00a0It was RGEC\u2019s burden to prove an easement existed, which RGEC successfully did.\u00a0\u00a0The burden for the trespass claim, however, was on Mr. Boerschig.\u00a0\u00a0They jury found that Mr. Boerschig\u00a0failed to\u00a0carry this burden, answering the question of whether RGEC\u2019s use of the property exceeded the scope\u00a0of the easement with \u201cno.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

With regard to the scope of an easement by estoppel, the dissenting justices note that under common law, the \u201cmanner, frequency, and intensity of an\u00a0easement’s\u00a0use may change over time to\u00a0accommodate\u00a0technological\u00a0development\u201d so long as the changes fall within the purposes for which the easement was created.\u00a0\u00a0The dissent\u00a0said\u00a0the majority ignored this approach and the scope of what is necessary to use land for a powerline, focusing instead on the existing poles and wires when the line was built.\u00a0\u00a0The right to use land per\u00a0an easement\u00a0by estoppel includes ancillary rights such as the right to make necessary repairs.\u00a0\u00a0The dissent offered an example of a line destroyed by a fire\u2014would the majority declare the reliance\u00a0terminated\u00a0rather than allow for repair and replacement of the line?<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The dissent wrote that the facts\u00a0regarding\u00a0scope of use were disputed.\u00a0 The jury\u00a0found\u00a0RGEC did not exceed the scope of its authority.\u00a0\u00a0 The majority took that decision away from the jury.\u00a0\u00a0Further, the dissenters note, there are many \u201csimilarly imperfect easements that undergird rural Texas\u2019s infrastructure.\u201d\u00a0 The dissenters voiced concern that by classifying every upgrade as a trespass, even if the face of a jury verdict to the contrary, the majority hands a \u201cwindfall\u201d to landowners. Instead, the dissenting opinion would rule that the easement\u00a0right\u00a0acquired\u00a0by RGEC must be accompanied by\u00a0the\u00a0right to make\u00a0repairs\u00a0and improvements along\u00a0the\u00a0route.\u00a0\u00a0The jury is the proper body to\u00a0determine\u00a0whether\u00a0such\u00a0repairs\u00a0or\u00a0improvements\u00a0are necessary to continue the use of the\u00a0easement.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Similarly, the dissent writes that when Mr. Boerschig\u00a0purchased\u00a0the property, he did so with actual knowledge of the line.\u00a0\u00a0That knowledge not merely that there were a certain number of poles and lines, but that the\u00a0line route\u00a0was operational and required\u00a0maintaining\u00a0and operating as a powerline route.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In conclusion, the dissenters wrote: \u201cBoerschig\u00a0made his best case to a jury of his neighbors that Rio\u00a0Grande’s\u00a0power line upgrade\u2014to include extra poles to improve the safety and reliability of electrical service\u2014was outside the scope of Rio Grande\u2019s easement.\u00a0\u00a0His neighbors simply did not believe him.\u00a0\u00a0The Court does.\u00a0\u00a0It is not, however, our role to supplant the jury\u2019s\u00a0credibility determinations.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Texas Supreme Court recently issued an important\u00a0opinion\u00a0in\u00a0Boerschig\u00a0v. Rio Grande Electric Cooperative\u00a0with regard to\u00a0implied electrical line easements and the scope thereof.\u00a0 Background\u00a0 In 1945, ranchers in Southwest Texas formed a non-profit Rio Grande Electric Cooperative (RGEC) to provide electricity to Co-op members in rural areas.\u00a0\u00a0RGEC has condemnation authority and now serves eighteen counties in Texas and two counties in New Mexico.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In 1947, RGEC acquired a document titled \u201cRight of Way Easement\u201d that gave an unspecified corporation the right to place, construct,\u00a0operate,\u00a0repair, maintain, relocate, and replace an electric… Read More →<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2444,"featured_media":16318,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21,30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16317","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-easements","category-texas-supreme-court-decisions"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nTexas Supreme Court Opinion Addresses Scope of Easement by Estoppel - 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\/07\/06\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Texas Supreme Court Opinion Addresses Scope of Easement by Estoppel - Texas Agriculture Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Texas Supreme Court recently issued an important\u00a0opinion\u00a0in\u00a0Boerschig\u00a0v. Rio Grande Electric Cooperative\u00a0with regard to\u00a0implied electrical line easements and the scope thereof.\u00a0 Background\u00a0 In 1945, ranchers in Southwest Texas formed a non-profit Rio Grande Electric Cooperative (RGEC) to provide electricity to Co-op members in rural areas.\u00a0\u00a0RGEC has condemnation authority and now serves eighteen counties in Texas and two counties in New Mexico.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In 1947, RGEC acquired a document titled \u201cRight of Way Easement\u201d that gave an unspecified corporation the right to place, construct,\u00a0operate,\u00a0repair, maintain, relocate, and replace an electric... Read More →\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/07\/06\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\/\" \/>\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=\"2026-07-06T06:57:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-06T14:47:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2026\/06\/david-leveque-kWbWJ1rFvwk-unsplash-scaled.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"2560\" \/>\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=\"12 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\\\/07\\\/06\\\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/06\\\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"tiffany.dowell\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73\"},\"headline\":\"Texas Supreme Court Opinion Addresses Scope of Easement by Estoppel\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-06T06:57:14+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-06T14:47:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/06\\\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2443,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/06\\\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/david-leveque-kWbWJ1rFvwk-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Easements\",\"Texas Supreme Court Decisions\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/06\\\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/06\\\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\\\/\",\"name\":\"Texas Supreme Court Opinion Addresses Scope of Easement by Estoppel - Texas Agriculture Law\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/06\\\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/06\\\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/david-leveque-kWbWJ1rFvwk-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-06T06:57:14+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-06T14:47:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/06\\\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/06\\\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/06\\\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/david-leveque-kWbWJ1rFvwk-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/david-leveque-kWbWJ1rFvwk-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":2560},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/06\\\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Texas Supreme Court Opinion Addresses Scope of Easement by Estoppel\"}]},{\"@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 Opinion Addresses Scope of Easement by Estoppel - 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\/07\/06\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Texas Supreme Court Opinion Addresses Scope of Easement by Estoppel - Texas Agriculture Law","og_description":"The Texas Supreme Court recently issued an important\u00a0opinion\u00a0in\u00a0Boerschig\u00a0v. Rio Grande Electric Cooperative\u00a0with regard to\u00a0implied electrical line easements and the scope thereof.\u00a0 Background\u00a0 In 1945, ranchers in Southwest Texas formed a non-profit Rio Grande Electric Cooperative (RGEC) to provide electricity to Co-op members in rural areas.\u00a0\u00a0RGEC has condemnation authority and now serves eighteen counties in Texas and two counties in New Mexico.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In 1947, RGEC acquired a document titled \u201cRight of Way Easement\u201d that gave an unspecified corporation the right to place, construct,\u00a0operate,\u00a0repair, maintain, relocate, and replace an electric... Read More →","og_url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/07\/06\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\/","og_site_name":"Texas Agriculture Law","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw","article_published_time":"2026-07-06T06:57:14+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-06T14:47:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":2560,"url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2026\/06\/david-leveque-kWbWJ1rFvwk-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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":["Article","BlogPosting"],"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/07\/06\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/07\/06\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\/"},"author":{"name":"tiffany.dowell","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/person\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73"},"headline":"Texas Supreme Court Opinion Addresses Scope of Easement by Estoppel","datePublished":"2026-07-06T06:57:14+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-06T14:47:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/07\/06\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\/"},"wordCount":2443,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/07\/06\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2026\/06\/david-leveque-kWbWJ1rFvwk-unsplash-scaled.jpg","articleSection":["Easements","Texas Supreme Court Decisions"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/07\/06\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\/","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/07\/06\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\/","name":"Texas Supreme Court Opinion Addresses Scope of Easement by Estoppel - Texas Agriculture Law","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/07\/06\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/07\/06\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2026\/06\/david-leveque-kWbWJ1rFvwk-unsplash-scaled.jpg","datePublished":"2026-07-06T06:57:14+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-06T14:47:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/07\/06\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/07\/06\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/07\/06\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2026\/06\/david-leveque-kWbWJ1rFvwk-unsplash-scaled.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2026\/06\/david-leveque-kWbWJ1rFvwk-unsplash-scaled.jpg","width":1920,"height":2560},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2026\/07\/06\/texas-supreme-court-opinion-addresses-scope-of-easement-by-estoppel\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Texas Supreme Court Opinion Addresses Scope of Easement by Estoppel"}]},{"@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\/16317","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=16317"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16317\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16319,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16317\/revisions\/16319"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/16318"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16317"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16317"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16317"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}