GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES

WINTER 2009-2010

State v. Central Expressway Sign Associates, WL 1817305; LEXIS 456 (Tex. 2009)

Condemnation – Adequate Compensation – Method of Valuation: The Texas Constitution provides that “[n]o person’s property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person.” TEX. CONST. Art. I, §17. The State condemned an easement that was leased to an advertising company for the purpose of erecting a billboard and selling advertising space. The trial court struck the State’s expert witness as unreliable for failing to include in his estimate of fair market value the income the billboard generated from advertising sales. The trial court entered a jury verdict in favor of the property owners, valuing the property interest at $1,850,000. The court of appeals affirmed, relying on long-established precedent. Held: Reversed. The Supreme Court declared that adequate compensation did not include profits generated by a business located on condemned land. Because the State’s expert applied an accepted methodology for valuing the condemned property, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court reversibly erred in excluding his testimony.

State of Texas v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. 2009)

Whistleblower Act – Plea to the Jurisdiction – Elements of Cause of Action: The Texas Whistleblower Act waived the immunity of the State and its political subdivisions by permitting a public employee to sue his government employer for retaliation on the basis of reporting a violation of law to an appropriate law enforcement authority. A report is made to an appropriate law enforcement authority if the authority is a part of a state or local governmental entity or of the federal government that the employee in good faith believes is authorized to: (1) regulate under or enforce the law alleged to be violated in the report; or (2) investigate or prosecute a violation of criminal law. Held: The elements of an action under the Whistleblower Act determine both a court’s jurisdiction and a government defendant’s liability. Thus, the employee must include these elements in his pleading in order to establish a court’s jurisdiction. Because the employee’s pleadings showed that he did not believe he was reporting a violation of the law to an appropriate law enforcement official, the lower court should have dismissed the employee’s claim for lack of jurisdiction.

Jordan v. Ector County, 290 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. App. – Eastland 2009)

Whistleblower Act – Jurisdictional Prerequisites – Internal Grievance: An employee filed a grievance concerning her employer’s failure to post a job opening in which she was interested. She was subsequently discharged. Without filing a grievance relative to the discharge, she filed suit, alleging that her complaints about the violation of the job opening policy were the motivation for her discharge. Held: The employee failed to satisfy the prerequisites for a cause of action under the Whistleblower Act because she failed to file an internal grievance with her employer relative to the discharge before filing suit. See Tex. Gov’t Code §554.006(a).

Turner v. Perry, 278 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. App. – Houston [1^st Dist.] 2009)

Due Process – Property Interest in Employment: School district police officers were terminated based on complaints by unidentified parties. Held: Texas Government Code §614.022 created a property interest in employment for peace officers and fire fighters by setting out requirements for disciplinary actions based on complaints. In this case, the employer accepted and acted on complaints that did not identify the true complainant. Instead, the complaints provided to the officers expressed the conclusions of other officers based on unidentified people. Thus, the officers’ due process rights were violated.