Breeling v. Churchill

1 Citing case

  1. Grasso v. Thimons

    384 Pa. Super. 593 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989)   Cited 9 times
    Concluding that the clear language of the restrictive covenant, stating that "none of the lots shall be used for any purpose other than for residential uses," prohibited the appellants from using their property as both a residence and a professional office for their accounting practice

    This view is consistent with the general rule in other jurisdictions. See,e.g., Marshall v. Adams, 447 S.W.2d 57 (Ky. 1969); Freehling v.Development Management Group, Inc., 75 Ill.App.3d 243, 30 Ill.Dec. 610, 393 N.E.2d 646 (1979); Dice and Dice v. CentralNatrona County Improvement and Service District, 684 P.2d 815 (Wyo. 1984); Taylor v. Kohler, 507 So.2d 426 (Ala. 1987); Breeling v. Churchill, 228 Neb. 596, 423 N.W.2d 469 (1988); Lakeshore Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Delatte, 524 So.2d 126, 129 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1988).