City of Austin v. John Cannizzo

Summary

The Texas Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that the trial court's jury instructions requiring a prevailing price and using the term "intrinsic value" were erroneous and not harmless, that market value is the willing‑buyer‑willing‑seller price regardless of recent sales, and that evidence of the parcel's adaptability to commercial use despite zoning restrictions was admissible. Justice Garwood dissented, arguing the errors were harmless and should not warrant reversal.