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…
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.