Legal Opinion

B.B.P. Corp. v. Carroll

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided August 26, 1988No. S-2300, S-2324PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

RABINOWITZ, Justice.

A subdivider, B.B.P. Corporation (BBP), brought suit against several residents of the subdivision to enforce two protective covenants requiring the cutting of trees. The questions raised on appeal are (1) whether enforcement of the covenants is barred, and (2) whether all of the subdivision residents are indispensable parties.

I

BBP appeals from a summary judgment granted on the ground that the resident owners had abandoned the covenants in question. Therefore, the facts below are set forth in the light most favorable to BBP. See Wilson v. Pollet, 416 P.2d 381, 383-84…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Zeman v. Lufthansa German AirlinesAlaska Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Ransom v. HanerAlaska Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Carlson v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Wilson v. PolletAlaska Supreme Court · 1966
  5. Burford v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1973

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Farmer v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Silvers v. SilversAlaska Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Swenson v. EricksonUtah Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Bishop v. ClarkAlaska Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Ridgewood Homeowners Ass'n v. MignaccaSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2003

8 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