Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Matney v. Webster

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided April 3, 1991No. 90-202Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

GOLDEN, Justice,

concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which URBIGKIT, Chief Justice, joins.

I agree with that portion of the majority opinion which holds that the buyer, appel-lee Bruce Webster, was entitled to a reasonable time to perform and did not breach his contract with the seller, appellant Linda Matney. However, I disagree with the result reached by the majority affirming termination of the contract based on appel-lee’s counterclaim.

A careful reading of the trial court’s judgment and decision letter reveals that it never made a specific finding as to why the contract should be…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Reed v. WadsworthWyoming Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Whitt v. GodwinSupreme Court of Virginia · 1965
  3. Sturgeon v. PhiferWyoming Supreme Court · 1964
  4. Concrete Specialties, a Wyoming Corporation v. H. C. Smith Construction Co., a California Corporation, and the Boeing Company, a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1970

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API