Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Eastling v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., No. 08-3661

By FindLaw Staff on August 27, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In a real estate contract case involving a restrictive covenant preventing the sale of any non-BP petroleum products on the property, district court's grant of defendant-BP's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in considering the real estate contract and the Petroleum Restriction together as the Petroleum restriction is part of the real estate contract to be read as a whole; 2) district court did not err in enforcing the covenant as it continued to benefit BP and the changed circumstances in BP's plans did not defeat the purpose of the restriction; and 3) the premise that successors are not bound because the restrictions do not run with the land is rejected.      

Eastling v. BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., No. 08-3661

Appellate Information

Submitted: June 9, 2009

Filed: August 27, 2009


Opinion by Gruender, Circuit Judge

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard