Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. v. Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, LLC

363 S.W.3d 192 (2012)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. v. Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, LLC

Texas Supreme Court
363 S.W.3d 192 (2012)

  • Written by Robert Cane, JD

Facts

Texas permitted the exercise of eminent domain by private companies for public use in certain circumstances. One such circumstance in which a private company was permitted to exercise eminent domain was during the construction of a carbon-dioxide pipeline by a pipeline company serving as a common carrier. The Texas Natural Resources Code required only that an applicant to operate a carbon-dioxide pipeline indicate that the pipeline would be operated as a common carrier. In its application to the Texas Railroad Commission, Denbury Green Pipeline–Texas, LLC (Denbury) (plaintiff) merely checked a box on its application (Form T-4) indicating that its pipeline would be operated as a common carrier. Denbury also checked a box indicating that the carbon dioxide to be transported would be owned by others but transported for a fee. In addition, Denbury submitted a letter to the Railroad Commission, as required by the Natural Resources Code, expressly agreeing that the company was subject to the duties and obligations of a common carrier. The commission gave no notice to any affected parties, received and reviewed no evidence, and conducted no investigation regarding Denbury’s application. The commission granted Denbury a T-4 permit and confirmed its status as a common-carrier pipeline eight days after Denbury filed its application. Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. (Texas Rice) (defendant) owned property interests in two pieces of land along the pipeline route. Texas Rice refused entry by Denbury’s land surveyors when they attempted to survey the land in preparation for condemnation. Denbury sued Texas Rice for an injunction granting access to the land. The trial court resolved cross-motions for summary judgment in favor of Denbury. It found that Denbury was a common carrier and permanently enjoined Texas Rice from interfering with land surveys. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Texas Rice appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Willet, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership