Case Name: In re Dan Phillip SUMMY
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 2009-03-19
Citations: 282 S.W.3d 194
Docket Number: No. 09-09-00068-CV
Parties: In re Dan Phillip SUMMY.
Judges: Before McKEITHEN, C.J., KREGER and HORTON, 33.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 282
Pages: 194–196

Head Matter:
In re Dan Phillip SUMMY.
No. 09-09-00068-CV.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont.
Submitted on Feb. 25, 2009.
Decided March 19, 2009.
William D. Noel, Houston, for relator.
Thomas H. Buchanan, J. Mitchell Beard, Melanie S. Reyes, Flowers Davis, P.L.L.C., Tyler, for real party in interest.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., KREGER and HORTON, 33.

Opinion:
OPINION
STEVE McKEITHEN, Chief Justice.
Dan Phillip Summy seeks relief from an order of inspection in a condemnation suit. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 196.7(b). Summy's petition for writ of mandamus contends En-bridge Pipelines (East Texas) L.P. did not produce evidence of a need to enter Sum-my's residence because Enbridge's appraisers have already performed an appraisal of the property without inspecting the property. We deny the relief requested in the petition.
Although an inspection that includes the interior of Summy's residence is more intrusive than an inspection only of the land being condemned, the fair market value of the property taken and Summy's condemnation-related damages are at issue. Sum-my's appraiser included damage to the value of the residence in his appraisal. The inspection ordered by the trial court is not overbroad and is relevant to issues in dispute in the condemnation proceeding. There was no objection in the trial court that photographing or videotaping made the request to inspect overly broad. The trial court's order does not exceed the scope permitted by the rules of procedure. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 192.3(a). The relator has not shown an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
PETITION DENIED.