Morris v. Nease
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
238 S.E.2d 844 (1977)
Dr. William Nease (defendant) purchased property in a neighborhood with restrictive covenants and opened a chiropractic clinic in 1972. The restrictive covenants limited the use of the property to residential uses and were put in place in the early 1900s. Since that time, the character of the surrounding area had changed, and several businesses were located nearby. Additionally, the previous owner of Nease’s property had divided the property into five rental units. Some of Nease’s neighbors (plaintiffs) sued Nease, seeking to enforce the restrictive covenants. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and Nease appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Neely, J.)
What to do next…
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 726,000 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
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 726,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,700 briefs, keyed to 983 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.