Baker v. City of McKinney

── Baker v. City of McKinney ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: May 22, 2026 Category: Civil Rights Case: 25-40396 Document: 55-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/22/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 25-40396 May 22, 2026 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Vicki Baker, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus City of McKinney, Texas, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21-CV-176 ______________________________ Before Haynes, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * The City of McKinney, Texas (the “City”) appeals the district court’s final judgment and other rulings in favor of Vicki Baker on her takings claim asserted under the Texas Constitution. This court previously reversed the district court’s summary judgment order finding that the City committed a compensable Fifth Amendment taking, vacated a § 1983 judgment in Baker’s favor, and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-40396 Document: 55-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/22/2026 No. 25-40396 court granted Baker’s reelection of remedy and entered final judgment in her favor. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM. I. Background Our court previously recounted the facts of this case in Baker v. City of McKinney, 84 F.4th 378 (5th Cir. 2023) (“Baker I”). In short, in July 2020, an armed fugitive held a 15-year-old girl hostage inside Baker’s home. See id. at 379–80. City police officers used various tools (e.g., armored vehicles, toxic-gas grenades, explosives) to resolve the situation. Id. While all agree that the police “acted unimpeachably,” these operations severely damaged Baker’s home and personal property, and the City refused to compensate Baker for this damage. Id. In March 2021, Baker filed suit against the City in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting takings claims under the federal and Texas constitutions. As to her federal claim, Baker alleged liability under the Fifth Amendment directly and via 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The City filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), which the district court denied. Baker later filed a motion for partial summary judgment, which the district court granted, finding the City liable under the federal and Texas constitutions. The district court held a jury trial in June 2022 and instructed the jury on Baker’s federal and state claims and damages for her real and personal property losses. The jury returned its verdict in Baker’s favor, finding that a total of $59,656.59 would “justly compensate” her for her real and personal property losses. Baker exercised the option to pursue judgment via § 1983. Id. at 382. The district court denied the City’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, following which the City appealed. On appeal, our court recognized “the existence of a necessity exception to the Takings Clause” and concluded that, “in this case, the 2 Case: 25-40