Legal Opinion

Hollis v. Garwall, Inc.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1999No. 66254-1PublishedCited by 176 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGuy, C.J.

This is an action to enforce a restrictive covenant set forth in a subdivision plat. We accepted review to resolve a conflict existing between the divisions of the Court of Appeals with respect to whether the “context rule” articulated in Berg v. Hudesman, 115 Wn.2d 657, 801 P.2d 222 (1990), applies to the interpretation of restrictive covenants.

We now hold that the Berg rule applies to the judicial interpretation of restrictive covenants. Applying that rule to the case before us, we affirm the result reached by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals.

FACTS

In January 1981, the owners of…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Berg v. HudesmanWashington Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Mt. Park Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. TydingsWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Mains Farm Homeowners Ass'n v. WorthingtonWashington Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Riss v. AngelWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Riss v. AngelWashington Supreme Court · 1997

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by176 opinions

  1. Hearst Communications v. Seattle Times Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Hearst Communications, Inc. v. Seattle Times Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Viking Bank v. Firgrove Commons 3, LLCCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  4. Wilkinson v. Chiwawa Communities Ass'nWashington Supreme Court · 2014
  5. Green v. Normandy ParkCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007

171 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API