Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook

To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Devillier v. Texas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Devillier v. Texas
Full case nameRichard Devillier, et al. v. Texas
Docket no.22-913
Questions presented
May a person whose property is taken without compensation seek redress under the self-executing Takings Clause even if the legislature has not affirmatively provided them with a cause of action?

Devillier v. Texas, (Docket No. 22-913), is a case that is currently pending before the Supreme Court of the United States.[1] The case has the potential to clarify the Supreme Court's takings clause jurisprudence. Because the case touches on whether or not the 5th Amendment is self-executing, the case had implications for Trump v. Anderson and whether or not section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is self-executing,[2][3] though ultimately the Anderson decision was announced before Devillier. The Court heard oral argument on January 16, 2024.[1]

Background

In the early 2020s, the Texas Department of Transportation installed certain median barriers in the middle of Interstate 10 in Texas.[4] The barriers fit together tightly such that water could not flow through them. As a result, water accumulated on one side of the highway during Hurricane Harvey and Tropical Storm Imelda, flooding the land on that side.[5][6]

Property owners sued Texas, alleging that the flooding of their land without compensation constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and therefore requires compensation.[7]

Texas argues that the Fifth Amendment is not self-executing and because there is no statutory basis for an action against the state, Devillier and other similarly situated landowners cannot be compensated.[8]

References

  1. ^ a b "Docket for 22-913". www.supremecourt.gov. Retrieved 2023-09-30.
  2. ^ Lee, Sean; Yang, Eric (2024-01-11). "Devillier v. Texas". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2024-01-19.
  3. ^ Millhiser, Ian (2024-01-11). "A new Supreme Court case about flooding has weirdly high stakes for Donald Trump". Vox. Retrieved 2024-01-19.
  4. ^ Begley, Dug (June 8, 2021). "I-10 medians at the center of dispute between flooded landowners and TxDOT set for replacement". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved September 30, 2023.
  5. ^ Powell, Nick (2021-04-08). "Judge allows Winnie families' lawsuit over Texas highway median to proceed". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved 2023-09-30.
  6. ^ "Petition for a Writ of Certiorari" (PDF).
  7. ^ "Devillier Appendix" (PDF).
  8. ^ "Brief in Opposition to a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari" (PDF).


This page was last edited on 20 March 2024, at 19:52
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.