Supreme Court

23-0842 - PDT Holdings, Inc. v. City of Dallas

PDT Holdings, Inc. v. City of Dallas

Case number: 23-0842
Legal category: Municipal Law
Subtype: Zoning
Set for oral argument: January 15, 2025

Case Summary

The petitioner challenges the court of appeals’ reversal of a judgment in its favor that the City of Dallas is estopped from enforcing a zoning ordinance.

PDT submitted plans for the construction of a thirty‑six‑foot‑high townhome to the City of Dallas. The City approved the plans and issued a building permit. The City did not identify that its Residential Proximity Slope ordinance, which requires structures to have a maximum height of twenty‑six feet, applies to the townhome. PDT began construction. A few months later, the City issued a stop-work order for PDT’s failure to comply with a different regulation. The order did not mention the slope ordinance. A few months after that, when the townhome was 90% complete, the City issued another stop-work order, this time for violation of the slope ordinance. PDT sought a variance from the Board of Adjustment, which was denied.

In the trial court, PDT alleged that it is entitled to relief under several theories, including equitable estoppel, laches, and waiver. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered judgment for PDT. The judgment, drafted by PDT, states only that the City is estopped from enforcing the slope ordinance against the townhome. The City did not request findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court of appeals reversed and rendered judgment that PDT is not entitled to relief on its claim for equitable estoppel.

PDT filed a petition for review. It argues that the court of appeals applied the wrong standard of review in its analysis, that the court should have considered its alternative theories before reversing the judgment, and that policy considerations support the application of equitable estoppel here. The Supreme Court granted the petition.

Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case.