July 24, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • U.S. v. Bennett, 23-40680, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Hendrix, J. (Jones, Oldham, Hendrix, by designation), takings, trespass
    • Affirming district court’s judgment that property owner was not entitled as part of just compensation for land taken by government for border wall the value of the portion of the wall built outside the easement previously obtained by the government.
    • Mary Bennett owns a farm along the U.S.–Mexico border, where the United States had previously acquired a levee easement and constructed a segment of the border wall in 2008. In 2020, the government initiated condemnation proceedings to acquire the portion of her property with the wall, along with surrounding areas, to expand and improve the border barrier. Bennett argued that the government exceeded the scope of its easement when building the wall and therefore she owns the wall and is entitled to compensation for its value. The district court rejected this argument, excluding her expert testimony on the wall’s value, reasoning that even if the government exceeded its easement, its good-faith belief in its authority prevented Bennett from recovering for the wall.
    • On appeal, the dispute centered on the common-law “trespass rule” from Searl v. School-Dist. No. 2, which generally treats structures built by a trespasser as part of the landowner’s estate. The district court interpreted Searl as containing an equitable exception for trespassers acting with an objective, good-faith belief in their right to build. The government advanced an additional argument that its exercise of eminent domain authority preempts state trespass rules, meaning Bennett cannot claim ownership of or compensation for the wall. The appellate court agreed with this argument, holding that federal eminent-domain power cannot be limited by state property doctrines and that the government must pay only for the land it is condemning, not for structures it constructed at its own expense.
    • The court concluded that Bennett is entitled to compensation for the fair market value of the land taken but not for the wall’s value, as federal law governs compensation in condemnation cases. The construction of the wall was a public project, rationally related to border security and flood control, and the government acted under its constitutional power of eminent domain. The court further ruled that Searl is inapplicable because it involved state law and did not concern the federal government’s eminent-domain powers. Consequently, Bennett’s expert testimony regarding the wall’s value is irrelevant, and the district court’s exclusion of that testimony was affirmed.

Unpublished opinions

  • Black v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, 25-10140, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Smith, Higginson), insurance, ERISA
    • Affirming district court’s judgment that termination of ERISA-governed long-term disability benefits was not an abuse of discretion.
  • U.S. v. Salazar, 25-10265, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Boyd v. Cleara, L.L.C., 24-10609, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Southwick, Oldham), Fair Credit Reporting Act, personal jurisdiction
    • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s FCRA claim against defendant based on its preparation of a credit report for a Massachusetts corporation, for lack or personal jurisdiction.
  • Horne v. Valencia, 23-10906, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Haynes, Oldham), sec. 1983
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from dismissal of sec. 1983 claims arising from traffic stop.
  • U.S. v. Myles, 24-11010, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Mendoza, 24-11080, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Cooper v. Stryker Corp., 25-30037, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Graves, Oldham), product liability
    • Affirming 12(b)(6) dismissal of product liability claim regarding a failed knee implant.
  • U.S. v. Martinez-Hernandez, 24-40479, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Rios, 24-40681, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Merkle v. Thomas, 25-50062, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Graves, Oldham), bankruptcy
    • Affirming judgment in favor of bankruptcy trustee, with no description of claim of issues involved in appeal.
  • U.S. v. Lawrence, 23-60265, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham), criminal, new trial
    • Affirming district court’s denial of new trial on the basis of an affidavit from a witness purporting to recant his testimony, giving deference to district court’s finding that the new affidavit was itself false.
  • Cardona v. Bondi, 24-60616, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Stewart, Graves, Oldham), immigration
    • Denying Honduran citizens’ petition for review of BIA order upholding the denial of asylum and withholding of removal.