Legal Opinion

Dixon v. Trinity Joint Venture

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided July 14, 1981No. 1621, September Term, 1980PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.

Melvin, J., dissents and files a dissenting opinion at page 389 infra.

In this case we are concerned with the duty of a general partner to give notice to limited partners concerning a business opportunity.

I The Law

Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo, while the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals of New York set out the standard in his usually eloquent manner when he said in Meinhard v. Salmon, 164 N.E. 545, 546 (N.Y. 1928):

"Joint adventurers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty. Many forms of conduct permissible in a workaday world for…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Meinhard v. SalmonNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
  2. Wendt v. FischerNew York Court of Appeals · 1926
  3. Impala Platinum Ltd. v. Impala Sales (U.S.A.), Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1978
  4. Corr v. HoffmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
  5. Herring v. OffuttCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1972

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. In Re Neshaminy Office Building AssociatesDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1986
  2. Waterfall Farm Systems, Inc. v. CraigDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1995
  3. In Re Fidelity America Financial Corp.United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1984
  4. Green v. Bellerive Condominiums Ltd. PartnershipCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2000
  5. American Metal Forming Corp. v. PittmanDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1992

2 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