Opinion

Prochazka v. Bee-Three Development, LLC

  • 466 S.W.3d 448
  • 2015 Ark. App. 384
  • 2015 Ark. App. LEXIS 491
Court
Court of Appeals of Arkansas
Filed
Jun 17, 2015
Status
Published
Author
Virden
On the bench
Abramson, Agree, Brown, Gruber, Harrison, Hoofman, Kinard, Vaught, Virden, Whiteaker
Cited by
6 cases

The opinion

Bart F. Virden, Judge, concurring.

I concur with the result reached by the majority in this summary-judgment case. While I see no ambiguity in the language regarding termination of the contract. I agree that the case should be remanded for trial because I believe there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the buyer’s “intended use” and whether the sellers’ property was suitable for such use.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.