Legal Opinion
Dacy v. Village of Ruidoso
New Mexico Supreme Court
Decided November 19, 1992No. 20143PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MONTGOMERY, Justice.
In this case we deal with an instance of so-called “contract zoning.” The trial court found that the Village of Ruidoso (“the Village”) had contracted with the appellants, Wayne and Sandra Dacy, to rezone a tract of land conveyed to them in exchange for another tract and held that the contract was void for illegality. In the Dacys’ suit against the Village for damages for breach of contract, the court after a bench trial entered judgment for the Village. The Dacys appeal and we affirm, discussing the enforceability of a contract to zone property and the consequences…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- VF Zahodiakin Engineering Corp. v. BD. OF ADJUSTMENT, CITY OF SUMMITSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1952
- Hydro Conduit Corp. v. KembleNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1990
- Hartnett v. AustinSupreme Court of Florida · 1956
- Albuquerque National Bank v. Albuquerque Ranch Estates, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1982
- Midtown Properties, Inc. v. Madison Tp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Heffernan v. Missoula City CouncilMontana Supreme Court · 2011
- Old Canton Hills Homeowners Ass'n v. City of JacksonMississippi Supreme Court · 1999
- Super Wash, Inc. v. City of White SettlementCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2004
- Durand v. IDC Bellingham, LLCMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2003
- Rando v. Town of North AttleboroughMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1998
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.