Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Gillespie v. Seymour

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided December 17, 1991No. 66,072Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLockett, J.

I concur with the majority except as to its holding that (1) the co-trustee, Dorothea, and Paul Seymour, III, should not be assessed punitive damages, and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in releasing defendant’s letter of credit.

The majority acknowledges that Dorothea owned 49% of the stock in Arrowhead and she profited from that corporation. The majority reasons that since Dorothea did not actively participate in Arrowhead and did not confer with Gillespie or her husband about the Trust investments in Arrowhead, she was not responsible for their acts. The majority asserts…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Gould v. Taco BellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1986
  2. Jennings v. MurdockSupreme Court of Kansas · 1976
  3. Prager v. HartSupreme Court of Kansas · 1920

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

Powered by the Exa API