Quick v. Austin

7 S.W.3d 109 (1998)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Quick v. Austin

Texas Supreme Court
7 S.W.3d 109 (1998)

  • Written by Tanya Munson, JD

Facts

In 1992, citizens of Austin, Texas (the city) (defendant) voted to approve the Save Our Springs Ordinance (the ordinance) and the Austin City Council enacted the ordinance and incorporated it into the city code. The ordinance aimed to ensure quality control of Barton Springs and required new developments to comply with certain requirements. The provisions of the ordinance applied to areas within Austin and Austin’s extraterritorial jurisdiction that contained watersheds contributing to Barton Springs. The ordinance imposed limits on impervious cover on land, required that new developments be set back from streams and not contribute to an increase in pollution constituents, and did not contain any waivers or variances. Jerry Quick and others who owned land outside the city limits of Austin but within its extraterritorial jurisdiction (collectively, Quick) (plaintiffs) sued the city, seeking a declaratory judgment that the ordinance was void because it was illegally enacted. Quick also challenged the ordinance under the Texas Water Code, seeking a review of whether the ordinance was invalid, arbitrary, unreasonable, inefficient, or ineffective. Quick and the city presented conflicting evidence about the effectiveness of the water-control measures the possibility of compliance, the financial impact, and the lack of variances in the ordinance. A jury found that the ordinance was illegally enacted and that the restrictions of the ordinance were an unreasonable, arbitrary, and inefficient attempt to control water quality. The trial court declared the ordinance null and void. The city appealed, and the court of appeals reversed, finding that the trial court erred in rendering judgment that the ordinance was unreasonable, arbitrary, and inefficient and that the ordinance was not illegally enacted. Quick challenged the appellate court by applying for a writ of error.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Abbott, 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 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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 815,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 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