Legal Opinion

Wagner v. Woodward

Montana Supreme Court

Decided January 31, 2012No. DA 11-0335PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Cotter

¶1 Mark and Taunja Wagner (Wagners) own property (Lot 2) along Whitefish River in Whitefish, Montana, which is subject to restrictive covenants. Brian Woodward purchased adjacent property (Lot 1) that is subject to the same covenants. Woodward added onto the deck of the home he purchased and built a split-rail fence along his east and west property lines. Wagners sued, claiming Woodward’s additions violated the restrictive covenants. The Eleventh Judicial District Court determined that the fences did not violate the covenants but the deck addition did. The court ordered Woodward to remove the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Trustees of Indiana University v. BuxbaumMontana Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Czajkowski v. MeyersMontana Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Hughes v. AhlgrenMontana Supreme Court · 2011
  4. Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney GeneralMontana Supreme Court · 2011
  5. Cole v. State Ex Rel. BrownMontana Supreme Court · 2002

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney GeneralMontana Supreme Court · 2012
  2. Algee v. HrenMontana Supreme Court · 2016
  3. Depositors Ins. v. SandidgeMontana Supreme Court · 2022
  4. Fossen v. FossenMontana Supreme Court · 2013
  5. City of Helena v. SveeMontana Supreme Court · 2014

11 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