Hill v. Lindner
North Dakota Supreme Court
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
- Terrien v. ZwitMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
- Bloomfield Estates Improvement Ass'n, Inc. v. City of BirminghamMichigan Supreme Court · 2007
- Metzner v. WojdylaWashington Supreme Court · 1994
- Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. LynneNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
- Beverly Island Ass'n v. ZingerMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Wheeler v. Southport Seven Planned Unit DevelopmentNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2012
- Ceynar v. BarthNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2017
- Wachter Development, Inc. v. MartinNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2019
- Wilson v. MaynardSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2021
- State v. Christopher D. WilsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 2022
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.