# Prochazka v. Bee-Three Development, LLC

> Court of Appeals of Arkansas · June 17, 2015 · 466 S.W.3d 448

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5284193

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert B. PROCHAZKA and Donna M. Prochazka v. BEE-THREE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arkansas
- **Decided:** June 17, 2015
- **Citations:** 466 S.W.3d 448; 2015 Ark. App. 384; 2015 Ark. App. LEXIS 491
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Virden
- **Judges:** Abramson, Agree, Brown, Gruber, Harrison, Hoofman, Kinard, Vaught, Virden, Whiteaker
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5284193

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5284193. Public record. Not legal advice.