Legal Opinion
Hurd v. Albert
California Supreme Court
Decided September 28, 1931No. Docket No. L.A. 11209PublishedCited by 70 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
This action was instituted by plaintiffs as property owners in Shatto Place tract, in the city of Los Angeles, to enjoin defendants from constructing and maintaining a gasoline, oil and service station on lots 13, 14 and 15, block 2, in said tract, in violation of certain restrictive residential covenants found in each deed by which lots in the tract were conveyed. Shatto Place tract, in which plaintiffs’ and defendants’ properties are located, was subdivided in the year 1905 for residential purposes, restrictive covenants, unlimited as to time, being inserted in all deeds by which…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Trustees of Columbia College v. . ThacherNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Jackson v. StevensonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Forstmann v. Joray Holding Co., Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1926
- McClure v. . LeaycraftNew York Court of Appeals · 1905
- Margraf v. . MuirNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by70 opinions
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. DuelSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Marra v. Aetna Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1940
- Fairchild v. RainesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- City of Los Angeles v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Marino v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1990
65 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.