Choisser v. Eyman

How courts have described this case

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

• listing requirements for a covenant to run with the land and bind future owners
• covenant capable of enforcement regardless of status as owner of interest in land is personal in nature
• refund rights under water extension agreement was personal right, and under common law could not, by definition, be a covenant running with the land
• parties’ intent significant factor in determining whether covenant runs with land
• parties‟ intent significant factor in determining whether covenant runs with land

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Flying Diamond Oil Corp. v. Newton Sheep Co.
  Utah Supreme Court· 1989-05-25· cited 47×
• Nickerson v. Green Valley Recreation, Inc.
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2011-11-30· cited 24×
• Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership v. Jenkins
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1998-10-13· cited 23×
• Prairie Hills Water & Development Co. v. Gross
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 2002-11-06· cited 11×
• HSL Linda Gardens Properties, Ltd. v. Seymour
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1990-02-15· cited 7×
• City of Tucson v. SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA CTY.
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1977-06-08· cited 4×

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Hanigan v. Wheeler
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1972-12-27· cited 12×
• Morton v. Rogers
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1973-09-13· cited 12×
• City of Glendale v. Barclay
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1963-09-18· cited 9×
• City of Glendale v. ARIZONA S. & L., IN RECEIVERSHIP
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1965-12-31· cited 3×