Legal Opinion

Brown v. Charlton

Washington Supreme Court

Decided August 10, 1978No. 45113PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrachtenbach, J.

The problem before us is to determine who, if anyone, is responsible for fulfilling a subdivision plat covenant to provide domestic water. Respondent lot owners sought specific performance of the plat covenant to furnish domestic water to their lots located within the Rivervale Addition in Spokane County. The trial court enjoined both the original subdivider and his successor in interest from refusing to operate a domestic water supply system for the benefit of respondent property owners. We affirm as to the successor in interest, but reverse as to the original subdivider.

In 1961,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Salois v. Mutual of Omaha InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Stanislaus Water Co. v. BachmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Lightfoot v. MacDonaldWashington Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Johnston v. Beneficial Management Corp. of AmericaWashington Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Mahoney v. TingleyWashington Supreme Court · 1975

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Anhold v. DanielsWashington Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Haner v. Quincy Farm Chemicals, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Gopen v. American Supply Co., Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1980
  4. State v. SchwabWashington Supreme Court · 1985
  5. In Re the Estate of DavisCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1979

6 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