Skip to main content

State v. Dawmar Partners, Ltd.

Citations

  • 267 S.W.3d 875
  • 51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1447
  • 2008 Tex. LEXIS 859
  • 2008 WL 4370687

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that landowner cannot recover for loss of access by framing it as a change in the “highest and best use”
  • concluding that the challenged experts’ testimony “was cumulative of substantially similar [testimony] from another expert”
  • explaining that because the complained of testimony was cumulative of substantially similar evidence that was not challenged on appeal, any error in admitting the testimony was harmless
  • noting injury landowners in Dawmar identified was loss of value resulting exclusively from denial of direct access to FM 1695 and its frontage roads
  • where jury questions segregate between compensable and noncompensable damages, a new trial is not necessary to remedy the erroneous award of severance damage
  • “We have implicitly rejected the proposition that the degree of impairment of access must be evaluated in light of a property’s highest and best use”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Per Curiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

38 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named State v. Dawmar Partners, Ltd.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.