Legal Opinion

Nordstrom v. Guindon

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided December 29, 2000No. 24925PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TROUT, Chief Justice.

C. Richard Nordstrom (“Nordstrom”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment holding restrictive covenants had been properly amended by a sufficient number of parcel owners to allow Defendant/Respondent, Michael Guindon (“Guindon”), to keep pigs on his property.

I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1995, Nordstrom, owner of several parcels in the Nettleton Estates (“Nettleton”), in Kootenai County, brought suit against Guindon, owner of a parcel in Nettleton, alleging Guindon’s keeping of hogs on his parcel violated the Amended Nettleton Estates Protective…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Friel v. Boise City Housing AuthorityIdaho Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Moss v. Mid-American Fire & Marine InsuranceIdaho Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Aberdeen-Springfield Canal Co. v. PeiperIdaho Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Clark v. St. Paul Property & Liability Insurance CompaniesIdaho Supreme Court · 1981
  5. City of Chubbuck v. City of PocatelloIdaho Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Shawver v. Huckleberry Estates, L.L.C.Idaho Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Pinehaven Planning Board v. BrooksIdaho Supreme Court · 2003
  3. D & M Country Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. RomriellIdaho Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Sun Valley Land & Minerals, Inc. v. HawkesIdaho Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Adams v. Kimberley One Townhouse Owner's Ass'nIdaho Supreme Court · 2015

5 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