Legal Opinion

AAA Valley Gravel, Inc. v. Totaro

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided October 30, 2009No. S-12207, S-12237Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part · MatthewsMatthews, Justice

As the superior court acknowledged, the Ramirez/Cosmos gravel lease had "a host of deficiencies" including "a relatively indefinite term" and a "lack of a legal description or any description of the property to be mined." Most importantly, the Ramirez/Cosmos lease lacked any language whatsoever regarding the exclusivity of Cosmos's mining right. Yet the court concludes that the hopelessly deficient Ramirez/Cosmos lease could potentially support a result that would require AAA to pay Totaro royalties on behalf of a now-defunct corporation for the remainder of the useful life of AAA's gravel…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part · Matthews.

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Ridge Oil Co., Inc. v. Guinn Investments, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Peterson v. WirumAlaska Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Alumni Ass'n of University v. Hart Agency, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1979
  4. United States v. Staci Speidel, A/K/A Rosemary Rojas, and Ervin Everett WrightCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1977
  5. Tise v. . Whitaker-Harvey Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1907

22 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