Finally got around to reading the case. Interesting. If I read correctly, Texas does not maintain a general right of public use on the shores of the sea, as we do in Louisiana. Any use that exists was reserved when the Texas government granted the land to the first post-Republican owners. The case would have been more interesting and informative had it come out the other way. In that case, Texas law would somewhat mirror Louisiana’s laws, and we might know the constitutionality of our own laws.
One thing I had not mentioned before, but of which I was reminded while looking at subsequent decisions based on this one, is that property owner have to be sure to follow the correct process for making a Takings claim. See Wilhelmus v. Parish of St. Bernard, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42969. In that case, the property owner did not make the appropriate inverse condemnation claim to receive compensation. In such an instance, the case is not considered ripe for adjudication, and there is no Due Process violation. Essentially, the owner did not avail himself of the available state process, which might rectify the situation. If an owner does not follow due process, he cannot claim a violation of Due Process.
Finally got around to reading the case. Interesting. If I read correctly, Texas does not maintain a general right of public use on the shores of the sea, as we do in Louisiana. Any use that exists was reserved when the Texas government granted the land to the first post-Republican owners. The case would have been more interesting and informative had it come out the other way. In that case, Texas law would somewhat mirror Louisiana’s laws, and we might know the constitutionality of our own laws.
One thing I had not mentioned before, but of which I was reminded while looking at subsequent decisions based on this one, is that property owner have to be sure to follow the correct process for making a Takings claim. See Wilhelmus v. Parish of St. Bernard, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42969. In that case, the property owner did not make the appropriate inverse condemnation claim to receive compensation. In such an instance, the case is not considered ripe for adjudication, and there is no Due Process violation. Essentially, the owner did not avail himself of the available state process, which might rectify the situation. If an owner does not follow due process, he cannot claim a violation of Due Process.