In Ronald Holland's A-Plus Transmission & Automotive, Inc. v. E-Z Mart Stores, Inc., 184 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2005, no pet.) ("E-Z Mart I"), one defendant owned and operated a gas station adjacent to the plaintiffs' property. The defendant experienced contamination of groundwater beneath the station because of leaks in the underground storage system. Id. at 752-53. After the defendant performed remediation required by Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TCEQ's predecessor), the Commission determined no further corrective action was required and issued a site-closure letter. Id. at 753. Several years later, the plaintiffs discovered their property was contaminated by fuel-related compounds which allegedly migrated from the defendant's station. Id. The plaintiffs sued this defendant and another party, who formerly owned the station property during relevant periods, for negligence, nuisance, and trespass. Id. at 752-53. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims were barred as a matter of law because the Commission had issued the site-closure letter. Id. at 753-54. The court of appeals disagreed, reasoning that the fact there were no longer contaminants exceeding state action levels remaining on the defendant's property did not exonerate it from liability for any contamination of the plaintiffs' property in excess of state action levels. Id. at 756. The court reversed the summary judgment because the plaintiffs presented evidence of contaminants exceeding state action levels on its property. Id. at 756-58. E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. v. Ronald Holland's A-Plus Transmission & Automotive, Inc., 358 S.W.3d 665 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2011, pet. denied) ("E-Z Mart II") was the defendant's subsequent appeal after a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. 358 S.W.3d at 668-69. When concluding the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury's award of the plaintiffs' lost market value, among other damages, on negligence and nuisance theories, the court reiterated its earlier opinion as holding, "as long as 'there is evidence of contamination in excess of state-action levels on the plaintiffs' land' damages are recoverable." Id. at 673.