Friedlander v. Hiram Ricker & Sons, Inc.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
1Opinion of the Court
WATHEN, Justice.
The plaintiffs, Robert and Ernest Fried-lander, acting in their capacity as trustees, *967appeal from summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants by the Superior Court (Androscoggin County). Plaintiffs unsuccessfully sought a judgment declaring a restrictive covenant in a deed to be invalid and unenforceable. Plaintiffs argue on appeal that summary judgment should not have been granted because: (1) a material issue of fact remains as to the intent of the parties to the covenant; and (2) the court failed to determine that the covenant was reasonable in scope and duration.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Roy v. BolducSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1943
- Day v. McEwenSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1978
- Richards Realty Co. v. Inhabitants of Town of Castle HillSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1979
- LaGrange v. DatsisSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1946
- Brown v. Heirs of FullerSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1975
3Cited by5 opinions
- Green v. LawrenceSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2005
- Anchors v. ManterSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1998
- Laux v. HarringtonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2012
- Friedlander v. Hiram Ricker & Sons, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1984
- Waterville Industries, Inc. v. First Hartford Corp.District Court, D. Maine · 1991