Opinion ID: 1496482
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: SBC's Takings Claim [2]

Text: SBC contends that it is entitled to compensation for its relocation expenses under article I, section 17 of the Texas Constitution, which provides that [n]o person's property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person.... TEX. CONST. art. I, § 17. Governmental immunity does not shield the State from an action for compensation under the takings clause. Gen. Servs. Comm'n v. Little-Tex Insulation Co., 39 S.W.3d 591, 598 (Tex.2001). To recover on an inverse condemnation claim, a property owner must establish that (1) the State intentionally performed certain acts, (2) that resulted in a `taking' of property, (3) for public use. Id. Although the first and third elements are present here, Harris County asserts, and the court of appeals held, that SBC does not have a vested property interest in the public right-of-way on which its facilities are located. We conclude that whatever interest SBC has, that interest did not include the right to require the county to pay for relocation of its facilities. A