Homeowners in condominiums, cooperative apartments and planned unit developments are subject to detailed covenant regimes covering matters like external appearance, pets and use of their units. Covenant enforcement can be controversial in these entities, which control 14.7% of the U.S. housing stock. When disputes between homeowners associations and homeowners result in litigation, courts apply five different standards of review across the 50 U.S. states, creating a natural experiment as to the effect of each standard of review. We performed a content analysis of reported cases involving homeowners association covenant enforcement from 1988-2003, then ran a regression analysis showing that more deferential standards of review, such as the business judgment rule, greatly reduce the number of reported cases. This reduction cannot be attributed to the simple accumulation of precedent over time. The reduction in the number of reported cases due to one-sided legal standard is consistent with the Priest-Klein hypothesis on selection of cases for litigation. Associations, as opposed to unit owners, win 64% of reported cases. This departure from the 50% limiting win rate in the Priest-Klein hypothesis is likely attributable to homeowners associations' superior information, greater association stakes in the litigation and irrational unit owners.