Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Ancala Holdings, L.L.C. v. Price

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided February 5, 2007No. 04-17180Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBybee, Circuit Judge

I agree with the majority’s finding that the district court properly dismissed Ancala’s claims as to the Barton fees. However, I disagree with the majority’s finding that the district court properly dismissed Ancala’s claims for breach of failure to operate the golf course as a premium private country club. For this reason, I respectfully dissent.

It is a generally recognized principle that “where a contract provides for continuing performance over a period of time, each breach may begin the running of the statute anew such that accrual occurs continuously.” 54 C.J.S. Limitations of Actions §…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Airco Alloys Division v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
  2. Hi-Lite Products Company v. American Home Products CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
  3. Singer Co., Link Simulation Systems Division v. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1989
  4. Thorpe v. SchoenbrunSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  5. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. RosamondSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1941

7 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