City of Dallas, Texas v. Hall

The Tax Court held that the easement did not meet the open space conservation purpose test because it did not preserve any land in its natural state and failed the historic preservation test because it did not protect the property's contribution to the historical nature of the neighborhood.

This represents the third federal court decision, along with Sabine River Authority and City of Dallas, Texas v. Hall, 562 F.3d 712 (5th Cir. 2009), holding that acquisition of a conservation easement does not require an Environmental Impact Report under NEPA.

The appellate court affirmed, holding that the neighbors lacked standing under both traditional common law of easements and the Ohio conservation easement enabling statute, as they were not parties to the easement.

Over the course of two years, partnerships among Camp Bullis, the city of San Antonio, Bexar County, The Nature Conservancy, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and willing landowners permanently protected golden-cheeked warbler habitat in the Texas Hill Country.

The Tax Court held that the conservation easement was not a 'qualified real property interest' because the substitution provision allowed the grantor to change the protected property and thus the easement was not 'granted in perpetuity' under I.R.C. 170(h)(2)(C).

The trial court held that landowner did not terminate the Highway Easement so the highway easement passed to the County with the taking and even if not in effect, the conservation easement did not prohibit the right to use the road and river crossing.

The court held that the conveyance of the conservation easement and the proposed donation of the fee interest did not trigger the right of first refusal, as these were not 'sales.'

The court held that a negative easement in gross for conservation or historic preservation purposes was a valid easement under Virginia law, even though it was established in 1973, before the enactment of the Virginia Conservation Easement Act.

The requirements of the Subdivision Map Act are not applicable to a corporation’s grant of a conservation easement under which the corporation will maintain ownership and possession of the property subject to the easement.

Buyer filed a breach of contract suit against the City. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City, finding that a binding contract did not exist because the City had not obtained the approval of the state legislature as required under the Act.