Legal Opinion
Goldston v. AMI Investments, Inc.
Nevada Supreme Court
Decided December 28, 1982No. 12922PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Per curiam
This case arises from a contract of sale entered into by the Goldstons, appellants, and AMI Investments, Inc., respondent, regarding two lots in Boulder City, Nevada. A broker for AMI procured an offer for the two lots from the Goldstons who accompanied their offer with a $500 deposit as earnest money. AMI accepted the offer and both parties signed escrow instructions. Close of escrow was set for November 24, 1978, and time was of the essence. The offer and acceptance agreement and the escrow instructions stated that close of escrow was contingent upon AMI causing the removal of a…
3Cases cited9 opinions
- Shoreham Developers, Inc. v. Randolph Hills, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1967
- Coronado Co. v. Jacome's Department Store, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1981
- Rubin v. FuchsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Integrated, Inc. v. Alec Fergusson Electrical ContractorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
- Associated Developers Co. v. InfangerIdaho Supreme Court · 1962
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by3 opinions
- Nga 2 Limited Liability Co. v. RainsNevada Supreme Court · 1997
- Acton v. Fullmer (In Re Fullmer)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Nevada · 2005
- NLRK LLC v. Indoor Ag-Con LLCDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2023