Environmental Processing Systems, L.C. v. Fpl Farming Ltd.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the trial court’s error was harmful “[b]ecause the charge required FPL to prove an element on which it did not bear the burden of proof”
• recognizing in the trespass context that owners of real property have the right to exclude others from that property
• noting that the Texas Supreme Court “has consistently defined a trespass as encompassing three elements: (1) entry (2) onto the property of another (3) without the property owner’s consent or authorization.”
• listing elements of trespass as: (1) entry (2) onto the property of another (3) without the property owner’s consent or authorization
• declining to decide “whether deep subsurface wastewater migration is actionable as a common law trespass in Texas”
• listing elements of trespass as: (1) entry (2) onto the property of another (3) without the property owner’s consent or authorization

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).