Estancias Dallas Corp. v. Schultz

500 S.W.2d 217 (1973)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Estancias Dallas Corp. v. Schultz

Texas Court of Civil Appeals
500 S.W.2d 217 (1973)

Play video

Facts

The Schultzes (plaintiffs) had a quiet home until Estancias Dallas Corporation (Estancias) (defendant) built an apartment complex next to their property. The complex had eight buildings and 155 apartments, which needed air conditioning to be rentable. To save $40,000, Estancias installed a single large air-conditioning unit that served the entire complex instead of installing individual building units. This single unit was located less than six feet from the Schultzes’ property and generated noise similar to a jet airplane. The Schultzes complained that they could no longer entertain in their backyard; carry on normal conversations in their home, even with the doors and windows closed; or sleep well at night. The Schultzes sued Estancias to abate the nuisance caused by the air-conditioning unit. The Schultzes submitted evidence that their property value had dropped from $25,000 to either $12,500 or $10,000. Estancias submitted evidence that, at this point, it would have to spend between $150,000 and $200,000 to stop using the large unit and install individual building units. Applying a traditional approach, the trial court defined a nuisance as an unusual or excessive activity that unreasonably interfered with or harmed the Schultzes’ use and enjoyment of their property. The jury found that the large air-conditioning unit met this definition and was a continuous and permanent nuisance. The jury also found that the Schultzes had already suffered $10,000 of injuries. However, in response to a motion from Estancias, the Schultzes elected to seek only an injunction, not monetary damages. Based on the jury’s findings, the trial court granted the injunction and ordered Estancias to stop operating the large air-conditioning unit. Estancias appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Stephenson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership