top of page
very latest closeup.jpg
Screen Shot 2022-06-25 at 4.05.36 PM.png



The Constitution requires that the government pay just compensation when it takes private property for a public purpose by a process known as “eminent domain” or “condemnation.”

The Constitution also may require the government to pay for “inverse condemnation,” a government’s physical intrusion onto a property, even by flooding, its refusal to allow development of property, or regulating property in such a way as to deny all beneficial use.

Mr. McCabe is a recognized authority in the area of state constitutional law, and the Texas Supreme Court made new law in the area of government takings, quoting Mr. McCabe's constitutional analysis in Dallas v. Stewart, 361 S.W.3d 562, 573 (Tex. 2012).

Mr. McCabe also successfully represented a company in a multi-million-dollar claim against a Houston-area city that was refusing to allow development of land for low-income individuals to erect their own homes.


The City of Dallas Dallas "committed a regulatory taking when it denied a natural gas drilling permit on city-owned land to an energy company, a Texas appeals court ruled, affirming a $33.6 million jury verdict for the company." -- Law360, Aug. 4, 2022.

“Inverse condemnation is ‘a cause of action against a governmental defendant to recover the value of property which has been taken in fact by the governmental defendant, even though no formal exercise of the power of eminent domain has been attempted by the taking agency.’” Hearts Bluff Game Ranch, Inc. v. State, 381 S.W.3d 468, 476 (Tex. 2012) (quoting United States v. Clarke, 445 U.S. 253, 257 (1980)).

Link to court opinion:


Texas Supreme Court holds that Houston-Dallas high-speed rail project has eminent domain power.

Link to court opinion:


Texas Justices Side With City In Utilities 'Takings' Dispute

The Texas Supreme Court on Friday sided with the city of Baytown and agreed that its refusal to connect utility service to a landlord's property wasn't a constitutional "taking" for which the city would have to compensate the property owner. — Law360 05/16/2022


 Link to the opinion --


bottom of page