Legal Opinion
Meyer v. Ludvik
Wyoming Supreme Court
Decided April 9, 1984No. 83-159, 83-160PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROSE, Justice.
The resolution of the issues raised hy this appeal requires an examination of the elements of misrepresentation as a ground for rescinding a contract. This case arose as an action by appellants Fred W. and Blanche L. Meyer to recover on a promissory note and mortgage executed by appellant Horseshoe Creek Limited (Horseshoe) and assumed by appellee James A. Ludvik as assignee of a contract for the deed to the encumbered ranch property. Ludvik defended on the theory that he was entitled to rescind the assignment of the contract for deed and, therefore, had no obligation on the…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Lawrence v. . FoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Sabo v. DelmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1957
- Adams v. . GilligNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
- Johnson v. SoulisWyoming Supreme Court · 1975
- Adams v. ClarkNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Applied Genetics International, Inc. v. First Affiliated Securities, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990
- Britton v. Bill Anselmi Pontiac-Buick-GMC, Inc.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1990
- Tommy J. Eaton v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1999
- Applied Genetics International, Inc. v. First Affiliated Securities, Inc. American First Corporation Jack A. Alexander Kenneth W. Elsberry Richard P. Woltman and William J. Patton, Defendants/third- Party v. Norman Jay Hayes, Third-Party-Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1990
- BHP Petroleum Co., Inc. v. OkieWyoming Supreme Court · 1992
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.