Davis v. Huey
Texas Supreme Court
20 S.W. 2d 561 (1981)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Tom and Hattie Davis (defendants), owners of a home in a residential subdivision, appealed a permanent injunction entered by a trial court and affirmed by the court of appeals that ordered them to remove part of their residence that their neighbors, the Hueys (plaintiffs), alleged was built in violation of restrictive covenants. The covenants at issue provided that the placement of houses in the subdivision had to comply with specific set-back restrictions and that before starting construction, an owner had to obtain approval from the developer, who had authority to withhold approval on any ground. Citing that broad authority, the developer had rejected the Davises’ plan because the proposed placement of their house was not compatible with how previously built houses were placed on their lots, although the Davises’ house complied with the specific set-back provisions in the covenant. When negotiations went nowhere, the Davises proceeded to build their home without approval. The Hueys sued to halt the construction, contending that the home’s placement more toward the rear of the lot would reduce surrounding property values and block the views of neighboring homes that were located closer to the street, and that this was inconsistent with the general plan or scheme for house placement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wallace, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
