Legal Opinion
Klosterman v. Hickel Investment Co.
Alaska Supreme Court
Decided July 19, 1991No. S-3560PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MOORE, Justice.
This appeal arises from Hickel Investment Company’s (HIC) action to recover rent and possession of premises leased to Keystar, Inc., a/k/a Doubleday’s, Inc. (Doubleday’s), a corporation owned and operated by appellants David A. Klosterman and Frank Dahl. The superior court found that HIC’s re-entries of the premises on November 27 and December 15, 1987, were in compliance with the lease agreement between the parties. It then determined that Doubleday’s anticipatorily breached the agreement and awarded HIC lawful possession of the premises as well as all rent due over the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Langdon v. ChampionAlaska Supreme Court · 1987
- O'Neill Investigations, Inc. v. Illinois Employers Insurance of WausauAlaska Supreme Court · 1981
- Wessells v. State, Department of HighwaysAlaska Supreme Court · 1977
- Parker v. Northern Mixing Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1988
- Port Valdez Company v. City of ValdezAlaska Supreme Court · 1968
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Bhole, Inc. v. Shore Investments, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2013
- Ellingstad v. State, Department of Natural ResourcesAlaska Supreme Court · 1999
- Municipality of Anchorage v. GentileAlaska Supreme Court · 1996
- Rausch v. DevineAlaska Supreme Court · 2003
- Amerada Hess Pipeline Corporation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Mapco Alaska Petroleum Inc., IntervenorsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1997
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.