Legal Opinion
Crawford v. Senosky
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided January 18, 1929PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
1. That injunction is the proper remedy for enforcement of a valid restriction imposed on the use of land is well settled: Duester v. Alvin, 74 Or. 544 (145 Pac. 660); Grussi v. Eighth Church of Christ, Scientist, 116 Or. 336 (241 Pac. 66); Ludgate v. Somerville, 121 Or. 643 (256 Pac. 1043, 54 A. L. R. 837); Menstell v. Johnson, 125 Or. 150 (262 Pac. 853, 266 Pac. 891, 57 A. L. R. 311).
In a discussion of the case of Duester v. Alvin, supra, this court, speaking by Mr. Chief Justice Moore, said, at page 552:
“The covenant in each deed executed by the corporation was made in pursuance of a…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hefner v. Northwestern Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Tax Lien Co. v. . SchultzeNew York Court of Appeals · 1914
- Landell v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Ludgate v. SomervilleOregon Supreme Court · 1927
- Ewertsen v. GerstenbergIllinois Supreme Court · 1900
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Yogman v. ParrottOregon Supreme Court · 1997
- Hayes v. GibbsUtah Supreme Court · 1946
- City of Olympia v. PalzerWashington Supreme Court · 1986
- Swaggerty v. PetersenOregon Supreme Court · 1977
- Westwood Homeowners Ass'n v. Lane CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1993
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.