Jim Bailey v. TECO Pipeline Company--Appeal from 2nd 25th Judicial District Court of Guadalupe County

No. 04-98-00611-CV
Jim BAILEY,
Appellant
v.
TECO PIPELINE COMPANY,
Appellee
From the 2nd 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
Trial Court No. 95-0918-CV
Honorable Gus J. Strauss, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Alma L. L pez, Justice

Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice

Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Alma L. L pez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 10, 1999

AFFIRMED

Memorandum Opinion

This is an appeal of a district court judgment in an eminent domain proceeding, wherein the trial court granted Teco Pipeline Company an easement for a natural gas pipeline across the property of Jim Bailey and awarded him $6,000.00 for the taking. In this appeal, Bailey asserts error in the trial court's determination that Teco is a corporation described in Article 1435 of the revised civil statutes, and that Teco's pipeline is for a public purpose and public necessity. These points, comprising issues one through six seek to show error in the trial court's decisions to grant Teco's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and deny Bailey's motion for Dismissal of Condemnation Proceeding. The opinion of this court in a similar case, which became final on October 7, 1999, is determinative of these issues in appellee's favor. See Anderson v. Teco Pipeline Company, 985 S.W.2d 559 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1998, pet. denied). Accordingly, issues one through six are overruled. Likewise, issues seven and eight assert that the trial court erred in entry of its amended final judgment because it does not conform to the pleadings, it contains hearsay, and purports to grant perpetual relief to Teco. Again, these issues have been thoroughly raised and discussed in our opinion in Anderson, and we find that the principles discussed in that opinion control here as well. See id. Accordingly, issues seven and eight are overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Alma L. L pez, Justice

Do Not Publish