Other cases we have reviewed suffer from these same deficiencies. See Tarrant County Water Control & Improvement Dist. Number One v. Fullwood, 963 S.W.2d 60, 61 (Tex.1998) (Hecht, J., dissenting from denial of application for writ of error) ("[T]he [trial] court awarded Fullwood $60,000 for what the jury found to be the value of his royalty interest at the time the District plugged the wells, based on the anticipated future economic productive life of the oil reserves.”); Trinity River Auth. v. Chain, 437 S.W.2d 887, 889 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (where jury was asked to determine "reasonable market value of the minerals under the 280.64 acres of land being condemned”); City of Teague v. Stiles, 263 S.W.2d 623, 628, 630 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1953, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>). 6 . In fact, Justice Looney dissented on
holding the measure of damages is the difference between the value of the automobile prior to the upset and its value when prepared and presented to the plaintiff for acceptance holding that if respondents suit is one for permanent damages to the land the measure of damages is the decreased value of the land holding that a patentees use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se  holding witness competent to testify as to the market value of the royalty under the land that the value of the royalty under the lake would be depreciated and that the spacing rule of the railroad commission is one well per 40 acres holding the aggregate value of the land and its improvements is the controlling value