Case Citator › Steele v. City of Houston

Steele v. City of Houston

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Texas
Citation
603 S.W.2d 786
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
27 of 27
Citing cases (total)
27
Treatment dates
1991
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. Steele v. City of Houston was criticized on its statement that constitutional compensation for public use had been narrowed to property damage from public works. The Fifth Circuit found that Steele's cited cases and facts did not support that reading.
More on how this was screened

It did not reject Steele's holding that innocent owners may seek compensation when police intentionally destroy their property for public safety. The confirmed criticism is listed below. All 27 flagged citations have been read.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

27 later cases cite Steele v. City of Houston; 27 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Steele v. City of Houston?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Criticized

  • The Fifth Circuit found that Steele's cited cases did not support its statement that public-use compensation had been narrowed to damage from public works.

    Samaad v. City of Dallas · Fifth Circuit · filed

    Although this language appears to strengthen plaintiffs’ contention, Steele nonetheless provides inadequate support. For instance, the cases cited by the Steele court do not constitute “judicial narrow-ings” of the “public use” language in section 17. More importantly, the facts of Steele call into question plaintiffs’ preferred reading of the case.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Steele v. City of Houston and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace