Cimino v. Dill
Appellate Court of Illinois
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Lorenz
Plaintiff Joseph Cimino filed an action seeking a declaration that various restrictive covenants did not preclude him from constructing and operating medical offices on property he purchased in an Elk Grove Village subdivision. On remand from a prior appeal (Cimino v. Dill (1980), 92 Ill. App. 3d 345 (“Cimino I”)), the trial court construed the applicable covenant as permitting the proposed use, and defendants Bud Krueger and Charles Christian (the owners of single-family residences in the subdivision) appeal from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff. We hold that the trial court properly…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hutchinson v. UlrichIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
- Hays v. St. Paul Methodist Episcopal ChurchIllinois Supreme Court · 1902
- Eckhart v. IronsIllinois Supreme Court · 1889
- Wiegman v. KuselIllinois Supreme Court · 1915
- Loomis v. CollinsIllinois Supreme Court · 1916
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Lakeland Property Owners Ass'n v. LarsonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1984
- 400 Condominium Ass'n v. GedoAppellate Court of Illinois · 1989
- Lake Holiday Property Owners' Ass'n v. ArenkillAppellate Court of Illinois · 1988
- Adult Group Properties, Ltd. v. ImlerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1987
- Adult Group Properties, Ltd. v. ImlerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1987
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.