Legal Opinion

Friedlander v. Hiram Ricker & Sons, Inc.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided December 13, 1984PublishedCited by 5 opinions

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

  1. Roy v. BolducSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1943
  2. Day v. McEwenSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1978
  3. Richards Realty Co. v. Inhabitants of Town of Castle HillSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1979
  4. LaGrange v. DatsisSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1946
  5. Brown v. Heirs of FullerSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1975

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Green v. LawrenceSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2005
  2. Anchors v. ManterSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1998
  3. Laux v. HarringtonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2012
  4. Friedlander v. Hiram Ricker & Sons, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1984
  5. Waterville Industries, Inc. v. First Hartford Corp.District Court, D. Maine · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API