Skip to main content

Bauman v. Turpen

Citations

  • 139 Wash. App. 78
  • 160 P.3d 1050

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that laches, equitable estoppel, and acquiescence did not apply where homeowners knew of a view deed restriction and that views were important to their neighbors
  • holding that laches, equitable estoppel, and acquiescence did not apply where homeowners knew of a view deed restriction and that views were important to their neighbors
  • holding that laches, equitable estoppel, and acquiescence did not apply where homeowners knew of a view deed restriction and that views were important to their neighbors
  • permitting extrinsic evidence to clarify the meaning of the term “one story” in restrictive covenant
  • permitting extrinsic evidence to clarify the meaning of the term \one story\ in restrictive covenant
  • permitting extrinsic evidence to clarify the meaning of the term “one story”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Agid

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

18 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

27 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Bauman v. Turpen

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.