Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Meiselman v. Meiselman

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 27, 1983No. 594A82Published

1ConcurrenceJustice Martin

Except as herein set forth, I concur in the majority opinion. There are, however, certain aspects of the case that should be discussed that the majority does not address.

In determining whether plaintiffs expectations have been frustrated, the actions of all the participants, including plaintiff, must be considered. The majority fails to address this aspect of the case. In Exadaktilos v. Cinnaminson Realty Co., 167 N.J. Super. 141, 400 A. 2d 554 (1979), aff’d, 173 N.J. Super. 559, 414 A. 2d 994 (1980), plaintiff acquired a twenty percent interest in a corporation that operated a restaurant. He…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. A.E.P. Industries, Inc. v. McClureSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  2. Masinter v. Webco Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Fox v. 7L Bar Ranch Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Exadaktilos v. Cinnaminson Realty Co. Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1979
  5. Gaston-Lincoln Transit, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1974

8 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