Tim and Diana Gleason and Randy and Susan Estes allege that Albert Taub, a construction manager, trespassed on their property and removed large quantities of dirt (while destroying the vegetation) with a bulldozer for use on another property. Taub argued that the Gleasons and the Esteses did not have standing to sue, because that part of their property was actually a public easement and the ownership of the public was superior to the fee ownership and that only the public should be able to sue him. Moreover, he argued that the law allowed him to remove dirt and vegetation because it improved the flow of water, the original purpose of the easement. The trial court granted Taub’s plea on lack of jurisdiction and his motion for summary judgment on the grounds that he had no duty to stay off the property and that he was legally allowed to remove the dirt. The property owners appealed. Did the court rule to allow Taub access to the easement and its dirt? How do you think the court decided and why? Gleason v. Taub, 180 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. App. 2005).