Nu-Way Emulsions, Inc. v. City of Dalworthington Gardens
Cases that cite this one
26 later published cases cite this decision. The 22 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Murmur Corp. v. BD. OF ADJ., CITY OF DALLAS (Tex. App. 1986)
- City of Dallas v. Vanesko (Tex. App. 2004)
- Board of Adjustment of Dallas v. Patel (Tex. App. 1994)
- Board of Adjustment of the City of Corpus Christi v. Flores (Tex. App. 1993)
- City of Pharr v. Pena (Tex. App. 1993)
- Tellez v. City of Socorro (Tex. App. 2009)
- Juan Manuel Tellez v. City of Socorro (Tex. App. 2009)
- Juan Manuel Tellez v. City of Socorro (Tex. App. 2009)
- Tellez v. City of Socorro (Tex. App. 2005)
- Juan Manuel Tellez v. City of Socorro (Tex. App. 2005)
- the City of Southlake, Texas v. Hanson Aggregate Central, Inc. (Tex. App. 2003)
- the City of Southlake, Texas v. Hanson Aggregate Central, Inc. (Tex. App. 2003)
- Pearce v. City of Round Rock (Tex. App. 2002)
- John Zamora and PCM Investments, Inc. D/B/A Junior's Beer & Wine v. City of Austin (Tex. App. 2002)
- John Zamora and PCM Investments, Inc. D/B/A Junior's Beer & Wine v. City of Austin (Tex. App. 2002)
- Wende v. Board of Adjustment of City of San Antonio (Tex. App. 2000)
- Steve Wende, Charles Brown and City of Shavano Park v. Board of Adjustment of the City of San Antonio and Martin Marietta Materials Southwest, Inc. (Tex. App. 2000)
- Southwest Paper Stock, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Fort Worth (Tex. App. 1998)
- J.B. Advertising, Inc. v. Sign Board of Appeals (Tex. App. 1994)
- Board of Adjustment of Dallas v. Patel (Tex. App. 1994)
- BD. ADJUSTMENT OF DALLAS v. Winkles (Tex. App. 1992)
- BD. OF ADJUST., CORPUS CHRISTI v. McBride (Tex. App. 1984)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Nu-Way Emulsions, Inc. sought a zoning permit to enlarge its asphalt emulsion plant in the City of Dalworthington Gardens. Nu-Way’s plant constituted a non-conforming use of property within an area zoned for single family dwelling. The facts are further set out in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals. 610 S.W.2d 562.
The zoning board of the City denied the application of Nu-Way because it constituted an enlargement of the non-conforming use in violations of the City’s ordinance against enlargement. Nu-Way appealed to the district court which upheld the position of the City. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed.
We are of the opinion that the result reached by the Court of Civil Appeals was correct. We do not agree with the portion of the opinion of that court which states that the decision of the zoning board is to be tested by the substantial evidence rule. City of San Angelo v. Boehme Bakery, 144 Tex. 281, 190 S.W.2d 67 (1945). By emphasizing this holding by the Court of Civil Appeals, we do not wish to be understood as adopting other portions of the opinion.
The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.