Legal Opinion
Kane v. Schulmeyer
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided May 12, 1998No. 97, Sept. Term, 1997PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WILNER, Judge.
In February, 1993, petitioners invested $400,000 in a limited partnership formed by respondents. As an inducement to petitioners to make that investment, respondents executed a guaranty agreement, in which they covenanted to return the $400,000 investment, on demand, if (1) the limited partnership sustained a “Net Cash Flow Shortfall” in any three periods, or (2) the gross sales of an affiliated limited partnership did not equal at least $3 million at the end of that entity’s first fiscal year.
On December 27, 1994, petitioners demanded the return of their investment, alleging…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Leroy v. Great Western United Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Missouri Housing Development Commission v. Edward W. Brice, Jr., Paul Goodrich, Joseph TimiltyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1990
- Wilde v. SwansonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1988
- Crook v. PitcherCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1884
- Deering Milliken Research Corp. v. Textured Fibres, Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1970
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Comptroller of the Treasury v. BlantonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2006
- Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. Lafarge North America, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2015
- Piven v. Comcast Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
- LeCronier v. United Parcel ServiceCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2010
- Piven v. Comcast Corp.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2006
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.