Marcus Cable Associates v. Krohn

Supreme Court of Texas · 2002 · Property

90 S.W.3d 697

Updated July 9, 2026

propertyeasementsutility easementstrespassstatutory interpretationexpress easementscope of easementplain meaning

Facts

In 1939, the Krohns' predecessors granted Hill County Electric Cooperative an easement to construct and maintain 'an electric transmission or distribution line or system' across the property, together with rights to clear vegetation as necessary for that electric line or system. In 1991, Hill County Electric entered a joint-use agreement allowing a cable provider, whose rights were later assigned to Marcus Cable, to attach cable lines to the cooperative's poles, but only to the extent lawful and with Marcus Cable responsible for obtaining its own easements and rights-of-way. Marcus Cable placed cable-television wires over the Krohns' property without their consent. The Krohns sued for trespass and negligence and sought removal of the lines and damages.

Issue

Whether an easement allowing use of land for an 'electric transmission or distribution line or system' authorizes installation of cable-television lines. Also, whether Texas Utilities Code section 181.102 gives a cable company the right to install lines on a privately negotiated utility easement over private property.

Rule

An express easement's scope is determined by the parties' intent as expressed in the grant, using the plain, ordinary, and generally accepted meaning of its terms; nothing passes by implication except what is reasonably necessary to enjoy the rights expressly granted. Technological developments may change the manner, frequency, or intensity of use, but only in furtherance of the easement's stated purpose. Section 181.102 of the Texas Utilities Code authorizes cable equipment on utility easements dedicated to public use, not on private easements negotiated between private landowners and individual utilities.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In rural Travis County, Rosa Mendez granted Prairie Bend Electric Cooperative an easement to construct and maintain "an electric transmission line" across her pasture. Years later, the cooperative allowed Red Mesa Broadband to attach fiber-optic internet cables to the same poles, and Red Mesa obtained no separate permission from Rosa.

If Rosa sues Red Mesa for trespass, which is the strongest argument for Rosa under the governing rule?

Explanation. Express easements are construed by the parties' intent as expressed in the grant, using the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms. A grant for an "electric transmission line" permits use for facilities that transmit electricity, not a separate communications service like broadband, even if carried on the same poles. The absence of damage is not the threshold inquiry, and later technology may be used only if it furthers the same granted purpose.