Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Dunkin' Donuts of America, Inc. v. Minerva, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided April 8, 1992No. Nos. 90-3124, 90-3244 and 90-3373Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partClark, Senior Circuit Judge
Although concurring in those parts of the opinion with respect to affirming the rulings against Dunkin’ Donuts, I dissent with respect to the principal holding in this case because the majority misreads the record at a critical point and for that or some other reason fails to apply long-established legal principles governing a party’s right to elect a particular remedy when two or more are available to him.
*1574This is a simple case. Dunkin’ wanted to escape from its franchise contracts with Apostoleres, sent her notices of termination of their agreements, and then sought termination in the…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Dorothy P. Robinson v. Lorillard Corporation (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1971
- Roehm v. HorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Canderm Pharmacal, Ltd. v. Elder Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988
- Friederichsen v. RenardSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.