Harris County Flood Control District v. Kerr

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the law of the case doctrine did not apply, where a subsequent appeal of the same case involved different parties and different facts
• holding that “a specificity element runs through” Texas takings jurisprudence
• stating that the Texas Supreme Court has “not held that the public-use element [of a constitutional takings claim] is met where the government does nothing more than approve plats or building permits for private development”
• imposing liability when the government makes a “conscious decision to subject particular properties to inundation so that other properties [will] be spared.”
• applying standard when county’s approval of “‘unmitigated’ upstream development, combined with a failure to fully implement [a previously approved flood-control plan],” ultimately caused flooding of plaintiffs’ homes
• stating only affirmative conduct by governmental entity will support takings claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).