Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Metro Motors v. Nissan Motor Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided August 12, 2003No. 02-1342, 02-1466Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHansen, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent from that portion of the court’s opinion wherein it affirms the district court’s denial of Nissan’s request for specific performance. I readily concur in the balance of the court’s opinion.

The court concludes that “the district court recognized its obligation to balance the equities present in this case ... and appropriately balanced the equities in deciding whether to award an equitable remedy.” (Supra at 750.) The opinion does not recite any actual balancing performed by the district court, however, because the district court did not balance anything. Rather, the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Summit House Co. v. GershmanCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993
  2. Johnson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
  3. Landmark Holding Co. v. WLW Real Estate, L.L.P. (In Re Landmark Holding Co.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · 2002

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

Powered by the Exa API