Legal Opinion

Urton & Co. v. Poznik

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided February 20, 1973No. C-234PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Pringle

This is an action to compel specific performance of a written agreement for the purchase and sale of real estate. The action was brought by respondent (Poznik), the purchaser, against the petitioner (Urton), who is the seller. The trial court ordered Urton to specifically perform the agreement to convey, and this order was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. We agree that a decree for specific performance was properly issued, and therefore affirm.

Some of the testimony at trial was in conflict. In our statement of the facts, as to matters which were subject to this conflicting testimony, we…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Imperator Realty Co. v. . TullNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
  2. National Importing & Trading Co. v. E. A. Bear & Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Coulter v. AndersonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1960
  4. Scheerschmidt v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
  5. Scott v. HubbardOregon Supreme Court · 1913

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Ball v. CarlsonColorado Court of Appeals · 1981
  2. Colorado Investment Services, Inc. v. HagerColorado Court of Appeals · 1984
  3. Lansdale v. GeerlingsColorado Court of Appeals · 1974
  4. Bent v. FergusonColorado Court of Appeals · 1990
  5. Catoe v. KnoxColorado Court of Appeals · 1985

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