In State v. Windham, 837 S.W.2d 73, 35 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 829 (Tex. 1992) the dispute arose when the State and landowner disagreed as to the amount of remaining land to be added to the part taken in order to form an appropriate economic unit. While the landowner proposed a total of 3.84 acres in support of his theory that the highest and best use was commercial development, the State sought to use the entire 19-acre parcel to support its contention that the highest and best use was to hold the land for investment purposes. The trial court restricted the appraisers' testimony to a 3.84-acre economic unit, thus preventing the State from presenting evidence in support of its theory of highest and best use. On appeal, the supreme court reversed the trial court and held that when the highest and best use of the land is disputed, a trial court must allow both parties to present evidence to the jury regarding their theory of highest and best use. In Windham, the parties disputed whether the highest and best use was to hold the land for investment or to use it for commercial development. In order to argue their respective theories, the parties each needed to use a different economic unit--19 acres for the State and 3.84 acres for the landowner. If the trial court restricted the economic unit to the size proposed by one party or the other, the opposing party would be forced to forfeit its theory of highest and best use. As a result, the supreme court held that both theories of highest and best use, and thus both proposed economic units, should be submitted to the jury.