Legal Opinion
Van Dam v. Spickler
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided April 7, 2009No. Docket: Was-08-235PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLevy, J.
[¶ 1] Olive and Robert Spickler appeal from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Washington County, Hunter, J.) following a non-jury trial. The court determined that the Spicklers’ claim for specific performance of a right of first refusal contained in a deed is barred by laches. We affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
[¶ 2] The trial record, reviewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, supports the following facts. See Stickney v. City of Saco, 2001 ME 69, ¶ 13, 770 A.2d 592, 600. Robert Spickler is an experienced real estate broker, developer, and instructor who purchased a large…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- A.G.E., Inc. v. Buford, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2003
- Greenfield Country Estates Tenants Ass'n v. DeepMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1996
- Stickney v. City of SacoSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2001
- Koch Industries, Inc., Cross-Appellant v. Sun Company, Inc., Cross-Appellees, and Champlin Refining & Chemicals, Inc., Defendant-Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1990
- Gildersleeve v. New Mexico Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Woodworth v. GaddisSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2012
- Maine School Administrative District No. 27 v. Maine Public Employees Retirement SystemSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2009
- Slama v. SlamaNebraska Supreme Court · 2023
- Hawksley v. GerowSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2011
- Paccar Inc. v. Elliot Wilson Capitol Trucks LLCDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2013
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.