Legal Opinion

Groff v. Kohler

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided August 2, 1996No. S-6300PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

COMPTON, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

Robert and Anna Groff (the Groffs) seek to reform a deed to property that they sold to John Kohler and his business associates (Kohler). The Groffs claim that despite the clear intent of the parties to the transaction, an easement was mistakenly omitted from the deed. The superior court ruled against the Groffs in their suit to reform the deed, and they appeal. We affirm.

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

The Groffs owned six contiguous lots in Fairbanks, bounded by Cushman Street on the west, Ninth Avenue on the north, and Tenth Avenue on the south. On lots one…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Oaksmith v. BrusichAlaska Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Parker v. Northern Mixing Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1988
  3. S. Utsunomiya Enterprises, Inc. v. Moomuku Country ClubHawaii Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Stubbs v. HemmertUtah Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1986

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Peterson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1999
  2. Estate of Smith v. SpinelliAlaska Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Simmons v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaAlaska Supreme Court · 2001
  4. AAA Valley Gravel, Inc. v. TotaroAlaska Supreme Court · 2009
  5. Pieper v. MusarraAlaska Supreme Court · 1998

3 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