Legal Opinion

Hill v. Lindner

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided July 14, 2009No. 20080334PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CROTHERS, Justice.

[¶ 1] David and Lori Hill appeal from a summary judgment dismissing their action to enjoin James and Pamela Lindner from operating a licensed day care in their home. The Hills claim the district court erred as a matter of law in deciding the Lindners’ licensed day care did not violate a restrictive covenant requiring the property to be used for “residential purposes only.” We hold the Lindners’ operation of a licensed day care in their home violates the restrictive covenant, and we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I

[¶ 2] The Hills and the Lindners are next door…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Terrien v. ZwitMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Bloomfield Estates Improvement Ass'n, Inc. v. City of BirminghamMichigan Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Metzner v. WojdylaWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. LynneNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Beverly Island Ass'n v. ZingerMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Wheeler v. Southport Seven Planned Unit DevelopmentNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2012
  2. Ceynar v. BarthNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2017
  3. Wachter Development, Inc. v. MartinNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2019
  4. Wilson v. MaynardSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2021
  5. State v. Christopher D. WilsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 2022

3 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