Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite O'Malley v. Central Methodist Church, 194 P.2d 444.

28 citing documents.

Powell v. Washburn 125 P.3d 373 Ariz. 2006
Powell v. Washburn 125 P.3d 373 Ariz. 2006
Methodist Church, 254-55, 451 (1948) (holding that the intent of the parties, in light of the terms of the deeds and the surrounding circumstances, is central to determining both whether there is a general plan and the meaning of the restrictions contained in the deed); A
Horton v. Mitchell 29 P.3d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Horton v. Mitchell 29 P.3d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Methodist Church, -51 , (recognizing that common-plan restrictive covenants are "enforceable by any grantee as against any other, upon the theory that there is a mutuality of covenant and consideration, which binds each and gives to each the appropriate remedy" (quoting Korn v. Campbell, 192 N.Y.
Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co. 803 P.2d 104 Ariz. 1990
Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co. 803 P.2d 104 Ariz. 1990
We granted review on two issues: (1) whether these restrictive covenants established by the original grantors are enforceable as class three covenants under O’ , and (2) whether enforcement of the covenants, regardless of their classification under O’Malley , is precluded by Werner v. Graham, 181 Cal.
Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co. 798 P.2d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Federoff v. Pioneer Title & Trust Co. 798 P.2d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Rather than producing facts to establish their chain of title, appellants argued that they are permitted to enforce the covenants under the third of the three classes enumerated in O’
Shalimar Ass'n v. D.O.C. Enterprises, Ltd. 688 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Shalimar Ass'n v. D.O.C. Enterprises, Ltd. 688 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
See Duffy v. Sunburst Farms East Mutual Water & Agricultural Company, Inc., , Palermo v. Allen; O’ , Carter v. Conroy, 25 Ariz.App.
Duffy v. Sunburst Farms East Mutual Water & Agricultural Co. 604 P.2d 1124 Ariz. 1979
Duffy v. Sunburst Farms East Mutual Water & Agricultural Co. 604 P.2d 1124 Ariz. 1979
O’ , Carter v. Conroy, 25 Ariz.App.
Colonia Verde Homeowners Ass'n v. Kaufman 596 P.2d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Colonia Verde Homeowners Ass'n v. Kaufman 596 P.2d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
In O’ , the court found no general plan existed.
Donahoe v. Marston 547 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Donahoe v. Marston 547 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Carter v. Conroy 544 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Carter v. Conroy 544 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Riley v. Stoves 526 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Riley v. Stoves 526 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
R & R REALTY CO. v. Weinstein 422 P.2d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
R & R REALTY CO. v. Weinstein 422 P.2d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
In O’-251 , the Arizona Supreme Court quoted from Korn v. Campbell, 192 N.Y.
Palermo v. Allen 369 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1962
Palermo v. Allen 369 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1962
O’ , Pierson v. Canfield, Tex.Civ.App., 272 S.W.
Smith v. Second Church of Christ, Scientist, Phoenix 351 P.2d 1104 Ariz. 1960
Smith v. Second Church of Christ, Scientist, Phoenix 351 P.2d 1104 Ariz. 1960
See O’-251 , ; Korn v. Campbell, 192 N.Y.
Kengla v. Stewart 313 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1957
Kengla v. Stewart 313 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1957
This distinguishes the instant case from O’ , .