Clem v. Christole, Inc.
Indiana Court of Appeals
1DissentMiller, Judge
I dissent.
I believe it is unnecessary to reach the constitutional issues, because, in my view, a group home is a residential use, not a business use. The group homes in this case do not violate the restrictive covenants contained in the respective deeds. There is no dispute that both homes are the type of building — single family dwelling — permitted by the covenants. Further, the uses are residential and not the business uses prohibited by the covenants. The detailed reasons for my conclusion were expressed in my dissent in Adult Group Properties, Ltd. v. Imler (1987), Ind.App., 505 N.E.2d…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Kaiser Aetna v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.