State v. Tex-J Ranches, Inc.

State v. Tex-J Ranches

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-90-146-CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellant

TEX-J RANCHES, INC. ET AL,

Appellees

From the County Court at Law

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court # 217cc

O P I N I O N

The State condemned 1.7919 acres of land out of Appellee's 54.99-acre tract for highway purposes. A jury returned a verdict awarding Appellee $4.50 per square foot, or a total compensation of $351,000 for the 1.7919 acres. The State contends that the court erred in (1) admitting evidence of market value considering the 1.7919 acres only as "severed land" and excluding evidence of the value assessed as a pro rata portion of the entire 54.99-acre tract, and (2) in prohibiting the State's expert witness from testifying about his "economic unit" theory of the subject neighborhood as it related to his appraisal of the 54.99-acre parent tract. We will affirm the judgment.

The facts and issues in this case are similar to those in State v. Windham, 803 S.W.2d 340 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ granted). We agree with the analysis and reasoning of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in its holding that, if section 21.042(e), Texas Property Code changes the principle of "adequate compensation" as contained in Article I, Section 17, of the Texas Constitution and as defined by the supreme court since 1863, either the supreme court must say so or the constitution must be amended. See id. at 341, 342. We adopt the analysis and reasoning in Windham, overrule the State's points, and affirm the judgment.

BOBBY L. CUMMINGS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

Justice Cummings and

Justice Vance

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed November 20, 1991

Do Not Publish Released for publication Rule 90(h) T.R.A.P.

he public in that location would add to the problem. Gage described the traffic congestion already existing in the area, especially just north of the location in question where Highway 77 intersects State Highway 342, resulting in what he believed to be the most dangerous intersection in the county.

Having considered the totality of the evidence, we hold that the decision of the TABC to deny the club's application for a private club permit in a "dry area" was reasonably supported by substantial evidence. The TABC did not abuse its discretion in giving "due consideration" to the recommendations of the county judge and sheriff of Ellis County. See Tex. Alco. Bev. Code Ann. §11.41 (Vernon 1978). Moreover, the proximity of the proposed licensed premises to a hospital, school, church, residential areas with many children, and the potentially hazardous traffic conditions, further justifies the denial of the alcoholic beverage permit. See Sierra, 784 S.W.2d at 360-61; Jones, 224 S.W.2d at 203; Helms, 700 S.W.2d at 611-12.

Based upon the testimony of the seven witnesses who testified against the application, the TABC had reasonable grounds to believe that "the place or manner in which the applicant may conduct his business warrants the refusal of a permit based on the general welfare, health, peace, morals, and safety of the people and on the public sense of decency." See Tex. Alco. Bev. Code Ann. §11.46 (Vernon Supp. 1991). Given the evidence as a whole, reasonable minds could have reached the conclusion that the TABC reached in order to justify its action. The judgment is affirmed.