Legal Opinion

Finnell v. Bromberg

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided May 2, 1963No. 4580PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*213OPINION

By the Court,

Badt, C. J.:

This appeal requires a determination of the rights and obligations of the parties under an option from Finnell to Bromberg for the purchase of certain corporate stock owned by the former. The trial court found that Bromberg had notified Finnell of his exercise of the option to purchase the stock and tendered the option price thereof, *214and that upon Finnell’s rejection Bromberg was entitled to judgment for damages in the amount of the difference between the option price and the price to which the stock had advanced on the exchange at the time of Finnell’s breach.…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Bonde v. WeberIllinois Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Killam v. TenneyOregon Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Sisson v. SissonNevada Supreme Court · 1961
  4. Garaventa v. GardellaNevada Supreme Court · 1946
  5. Milner v. DudreyNevada Supreme Court · 1961

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Miga v. JensenTexas Supreme Court · 2002
  2. North Arlington Medical Building Inc. v. Sanchez Construction Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Summa Corp. v. RichardsonNevada Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Lucente v. International Business MacHines Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2000
  5. Steen v. GassNevada Supreme Court · 1969

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API