Legal Opinion
Prebil v. Pinehurst, Inc.
District Court, D. Montana
Decided July 24, 1986No. CV 82-253-H-CCLPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
LOVELL, District Judge.
The issue the court must decide in this case is, assuming there is no intent to defraud or deceive, whether it is necessary for a statement of material fact concerning a lot in a development to be untrue at the time of the sale of that lot, for a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1703(a)(2)(B) to occur.
Plaintiffs John and Margery Prebil (Prebil), brought this suit against Defendant Pinehurst, Inc. (Pinehurst), under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1720, alleging a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1703(a)(2)(B), in that Pinehurst…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Ackmann v. Merchants Mortgage & Trust Corp.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1982
- Bryan v. Amrep Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1977
- Husted v. Amrep Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1977
- Claude Y. Paquin v. Four Seasons of Tennessee, Inc., Norman H. CronkCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Ivar v. Elk River Partners, LLCDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2010
- Gibbes v. Rose Hill Plantation Development Co.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1992
- Dongelewicz v. First Eastern BankDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1999
- Burns v. Duplin Land Development, Inc.District Court, E.D. North Carolina · 2009
- Allen v. NVR, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2012