Legal Opinion · Dissent

Pinkerton Tobacco Co. v. Melton

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided November 5, 1993No. Record No. 921965Published

1DissentJustice Lacy

Where the language of an agreement is clear and capable of only one reasonable construction, a court must read the agreement according to its plain meaning, Paramount Termite Control Co. v. Rector, 238 Va. 171, 174, 380 S.E.2d 922, 925 (1989), and may not search for its meaning beyond the instrument itself. Management Enters., Inc. v. Thorncroft Co., 243 Va. 469, 472, 416 S.E.2d 229, 231 (1992). Because I do not agree that the majority’s construction of the relevant provision in the “Long-Term Incentive Plan” (Plan) is the only one reasonable, I respectfully dissent.

The relevant provision of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Paramount Termite Control Co. v. RectorSupreme Court of Virginia · 1989
  2. Management Enterprises, Inc. v. Thorncroft Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1992
  3. Cary v. Northwestern Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Virginia · 1920
  4. Enstar Corp. v. Bass, Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)1987
  5. Poindexter v. MoltonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API