State v. Schmidt

In State v. Schmidt, 867 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. 1993) the Court recognized that not all condemnation damages are compensable. There, the State condemned strips of property as part of its project to convert a roadway into a controlled-access highway. The landowners sought compensation for the remainder properties' decrease in market value due to traffic diversion, increased circuity of travel to the property, lessened visibility to passersby, and the inconvenience of construction activities. Schmidt, 867 S.W.2d at 770-71. The State argued that such damages are noncompensable under the Constitution and the Property Code. Schmidt, 867 S.W.2d at 773. For two distinct reasons, the Court agreed. First, the Court considered the State's contention that the damages were noncompensable because they resulted from the State's new use of its existing right-of-way and property taken from other landowners. Schmidt, 867 S.W.2d at 777-78. The Court explained that section 21.042 of the Property Code allows recovery only for the effects of the State's use of the condemned land on the value of the remainder property. This rule exists, the Court further explained, because the effects of condemnation on the remainder property differ from the effects of the State's new use of its existing right-of-way or adjoining land. Schmidt, 867 S.W.2d at 777-78. And, the Court recognized that this rule, established by the United States Supreme Court in Campbell v. United States, 266 U.S. 368, 372, 69 L. Ed. 328, 45 S. Ct. 115 (1924), applies unless: (1) the land taken from the condemnee landowner was indispensable to the . . . project; (2) the land taken constituted a substantial (not inconsequential) part of the tract devoted to the project; and (3) the damages resulting to the land not taken from the use of the land taken were inseparable from those to the same land flowing from the condemnor government's use of its adjoining land in the . . . project. Schmidt, 867 S.W.2d at 778. In Schmidt, the Court recognized that a landowner's injury is not community simply because several landowners suffer similar injuries due to the condemnation. Schmidt, 867 S.W.2d at 781. Rather, the nature of the injury and whether it affects the remainder in some special, unique way determines whether damages are community or special. Schmidt, 867 S.W.2d at 781.