{"id":7588,"date":"2019-06-24T01:25:09","date_gmt":"2019-06-24T06:25:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?p=7588"},"modified":"2026-04-17T15:21:10","modified_gmt":"2026-04-17T20:21:10","slug":"texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/24\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\/","title":{"rendered":"Texas Supreme Court Upholds Condemnation of Private Drive"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

The Texas Supreme Court recently upheld the condemnation of a private drive in a case that tested the scope of “public” use under the Texas Constitution and the meaning of Texas Government Code 2206, which prohibits taking private property for certain economic development purposes.<\/p>\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

KMS is a commercial real estate developer that owned a 9-acre, triangle-shaped, lot in the City of Rowlett.\u00a0 Four commercial sites were built on the southern boundary of the tract.\u00a0 As part of that development, KMS built a private driveway, allowing access to the four sites from the public Kenwood Drive.\u00a0 The KMS tract is bordered on the east by a tract owned by Briarwood.\u00a0 The private drive did not extend through to the Briarwood property.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

In 2012, the City began seeking a high-quality grocery store and eventually identified Sprouts Farmers Market.\u00a0 Sprouts began negotiating with Briarwood for a long-term lease to built a store on the Briarwood tract.\u00a0 The City of Rowlett entered into an economic-incentives deal with Briarwood whereby the City agreed to pay $225,000 if Briarwood would provide access for Sprouts by extending the drive across KMS property to connect with the Sprouts store.<\/p>\n

KMS refused to grant an easement to connect its drive with the Briarwood tract, and the parties were unable to agree to terms by which Briarwood could purchase that portion of KMS property. At that point, the City filed condemnation proceedings to condemn the easement that Briarwood was unable to secure through negotiations.<\/p>\n

At the special commissioner’s hearing, the Commissioners awarded KMS $31,662 for the taking.\u00a0 At the trial court, KMS moved to dismiss the eminent domain action arguing the taking was not for a “public use” as constitutionally required, and that it violated Texas Government Code Section 2206.\u00a0 KMS also argued that the City’s public use findings were fraudulent, in bad faith, and arbitrary and capricious.<\/p>\n

The trial court dismissed KMS’ motion and granted summary judgment to the City.\u00a0 The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed.<\/p>\n

Supreme Court Opinion<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court affirmed in a 6-3 decision.\u00a0 [Read opinion here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

Texas Government Code Section 2206<\/em><\/p>\n

Initially, the Court held that Section 2206 was inapplicable in this\u00a0 case as the condemnation of the easement was for a transportation project.<\/p>\n

After the US Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London<\/em> held that the US Constitution was not violated when a city condemned a home as part of an economic-redevelopment plan and turned the land over to a private business, the Texas Legislature enacted Texas Government Code Section 2206.\u00a0 Section 2206 limits the scope of eminent domain powers when economic development and private-party benefits are involved.\u00a0 In particular, the statute provides that a taking is prohibited when: (1) it confers a private benefit on a particular private party through the use of the property; (2) is for public use that is merely a pretext to confer a private benefit on a particular party; (3) is for “economic development purposes”; or (4) is not for a public use.\u00a0 There is, however, an exception to this statute that deems it inapplicable to an entity authorized to take property by eminent domain for transportation projects, including, but not limited to…public roads or highways.<\/p>\n

KMS argued that this statute prohibits the taking of the easement, while the City argues the exception applies as the taking here was for a transportation project, namely, a public road.\u00a0 KMS claims the taking was not for a legitimate<\/em> transportation project and that, instead, the City’s rationale was all pretext for conferring a private benefit on Briarwood and Sprouts.<\/p>\n

The Court held in favor of the City, finding that this easement for a road was a transportation project, making the limitations on condemnation in Section 2206 inapplicable.<\/p>\n

Necessary for Public Use<\/em><\/p>\n

Next, the Court held that the City’s exercise of eminent domain in this case was necessary for a public use.<\/p>\n

Here, the City argued the condemnation was necessary to provide cross-access, traffic circulation, and emergency vehicle access between retail centers.\u00a0 At oral argument, counsel for KMS admitted that the taking would be for public use, were it not done at Briarwood’s request to obtain a public benefit.\u00a0 The Court stated this may go to the argument of fraudulent action, but it does not support an argument that the taking\u00a0 was not for a public use.\u00a0 Further, KMS did not challenge the benefits of cross-access, traffic circulation, and emergency vehicle access would all be beneficial due to the condemnation of the easement.<\/p>\n

Fraudulent\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

The Court found the condemnation was not fraudulent.<\/p>\n

KMS essentially argued that city used eminent domain power to acquire a right for Briarwood that Briarwood couldn’t negotiate for itself.\u00a0 As one amicus brief put it, they alleged that this was a “condemnation for hire.”\u00a0 Although KMS seems to agree that a taking might be proper under different circumstances, it was the City’s ulterior motive to provide an economic benefit to Briarwood and\/or Sprouts that was the purpose of this condemnation and constituted fraud.<\/p>\n

The Court disagreed, noting that there was discussion of condemnation in emails within the City before Briarwood learned it would not be able to secure an easement on its own.\u00a0 Further, there was no evidence showing that the Sprouts deal would not have closed without the easement.\u00a0 In fact, the store opened without the extended driveway.\u00a0 The Court found that although the City’s economic-incentives agreement with Briarwood may have played a role in the taking, that does not negate any of the City’s justifiable public uses for the easement being necessary.\u00a0 The mere fact that Briarwood and Sprouts might benefit from this taking was not enough to render it improper.\u00a0 To show fraud, KMS needed evidence that “contrary to the ostensible public use, the taking would actually confer only a private benefit.”\u00a0 Here, the Court held, there were plainly public benefits in addition to those private ones for Briarwood and Sprouts. Lastly, the Court noted that although Sprouts and Briarwood could benefit from the cross-traffic, KMS could benefit as well, perhaps more, from the same cross traffic due to the extended drive.<\/p>\n

Dissent<\/strong><\/p>\n

Three Justices (Baldock, Lehrmann, and Boyd) dissented. [Read dissent here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

The dissent focused on the Constitutional Amendment to Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution passed in 2009, after\u00a0Kelo<\/em>.\u00a0 That amendment provided limitations on takings when the purpose was to transfer property to a private entity for economic development purposes and requiring that takings be for the public’s ownership, use and enjoyment.\u00a0 This amendment, argued the dissent, changes the “public use” requirement and how it should be analyzed by Texas courts.\u00a0 It is public use–not public purpose–the dissent believes, that should drive the post-2009 analysis of “public use.”\u00a0Further, the dissent notes that it should be the burden of the City to prove public use, rather than on the landowner to prove the lack thereof.<\/p>\n

The dissent would “jettison the superseded precedent, eliminate deference to government declarations of public use, treat condemners like regular plaintiffs, treat property owners like regular defendants, and otherwise normalize standards governing condemnation cases.”\u00a0 Thus, the dissent would remand the case for the lower courts to consider these issues in light of the 2009 Constitutional amendment.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/strong><\/p>\n

First, this case illustrates the extremely deferential position courts generally take with regard to what qualifies as a “public use” under Texas law.\u00a0 Second, the Supreme Court language requires that for a taking to be fraudulent, a party would need to prove that\u00a0only<\/em> a private benefit was conferred, which seems a difficult battle at best.\u00a0 Third, this case also illustrates the limited defenses available to a landowner to challenge a taking when it is deemed to be a public use, namely fraud, bad faith, and arbitrariness.\u00a0 Thus, although landowners may challenge the condemning entity’s determination of public use, they face an uphill battle in doing so.\u00a0 Finally, this opinion limits the scope of Government Code Section 2206 by taking a broad approach to defining the term “transportation project” to include a private drive, rather than a roadway or highway.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Texas Supreme Court recently upheld the condemnation of a private drive in a case that tested the scope of “public” use under the Texas Constitution and the meaning of Texas Government Code 2206, which prohibits taking private property for certain economic development purposes. Background KMS is a commercial real estate developer that owned a 9-acre, triangle-shaped, lot in the City of Rowlett.\u00a0 Four commercial sites were built on the southern boundary of the tract.\u00a0 As part of that development, KMS built a private driveway, allowing access to… Read More →<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2444,"featured_media":7683,"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":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7588","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-eminent-domain"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nTexas Supreme Court Upholds Condemnation of Private Drive - 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\/2019\/06\/24\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Texas Supreme Court Upholds Condemnation of Private Drive - Texas Agriculture Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Texas Supreme Court recently upheld the condemnation of a private drive in a case that tested the scope of “public” use under the Texas Constitution and the meaning of Texas Government Code 2206, which prohibits taking private property for certain economic development purposes. Background KMS is a commercial real estate developer that owned a 9-acre, triangle-shaped, lot in the City of Rowlett.\u00a0 Four commercial sites were built on the southern boundary of the tract.\u00a0 As part of that development, KMS built a private driveway, allowing access to... Read More →\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/24\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\/\" \/>\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=\"2019-06-24T06:25:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-17T20:21:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2019\/06\/IMG_4130.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2928\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1885\" \/>\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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":[\"Article\",\"BlogPosting\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/24\\\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/24\\\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"tiffany.dowell\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73\"},\"headline\":\"Texas Supreme Court Upholds Condemnation of Private Drive\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-06-24T06:25:09+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-17T20:21:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/24\\\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1339,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/24\\\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/IMG_4130.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Eminent Domain\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/24\\\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/24\\\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\\\/\",\"name\":\"Texas Supreme Court Upholds Condemnation of Private Drive - Texas Agriculture Law\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/24\\\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/24\\\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/IMG_4130.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-06-24T06:25:09+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-17T20:21:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/24\\\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/24\\\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/24\\\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/IMG_4130.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/IMG_4130.jpg\",\"width\":2928,\"height\":1885},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/24\\\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Texas Supreme Court Upholds Condemnation of Private Drive\"}]},{\"@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 Upholds Condemnation of Private Drive - 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\/2019\/06\/24\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Texas Supreme Court Upholds Condemnation of Private Drive - Texas Agriculture Law","og_description":"The Texas Supreme Court recently upheld the condemnation of a private drive in a case that tested the scope of “public” use under the Texas Constitution and the meaning of Texas Government Code 2206, which prohibits taking private property for certain economic development purposes. Background KMS is a commercial real estate developer that owned a 9-acre, triangle-shaped, lot in the City of Rowlett.\u00a0 Four commercial sites were built on the southern boundary of the tract.\u00a0 As part of that development, KMS built a private driveway, allowing access to... Read More →","og_url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/24\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\/","og_site_name":"Texas Agriculture Law","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw","article_published_time":"2019-06-24T06:25:09+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-04-17T20:21:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2928,"height":1885,"url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2019\/06\/IMG_4130.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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":["Article","BlogPosting"],"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/24\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/24\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\/"},"author":{"name":"tiffany.dowell","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/person\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73"},"headline":"Texas Supreme Court Upholds Condemnation of Private Drive","datePublished":"2019-06-24T06:25:09+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-17T20:21:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/24\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\/"},"wordCount":1339,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/24\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2019\/06\/IMG_4130.jpg","articleSection":["Eminent Domain"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/24\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\/","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/24\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\/","name":"Texas Supreme Court Upholds Condemnation of Private Drive - Texas Agriculture Law","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/24\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/24\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2019\/06\/IMG_4130.jpg","datePublished":"2019-06-24T06:25:09+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-17T20:21:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/24\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/24\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/24\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2019\/06\/IMG_4130.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2019\/06\/IMG_4130.jpg","width":2928,"height":1885},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/24\/texas-supreme-court-upholds-condemnation-of-private-drive\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Texas Supreme Court Upholds Condemnation of Private Drive"}]},{"@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\/7588","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=7588"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7588\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7683"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7588"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7588"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7588"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}