Legal Opinion · Dissent

Leisnoi, Inc. v. Stratman

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided June 26, 1992No. 5-3774 to 5-3776, 5-3781Published

1DissentMoore, Justice

In spite of the complex factual setting of this case, the issues here are simple. First of all, did Koniag have the legal authority to enter into a binding agreement with Stratman and Burton? Secondly, if Koniag had such legal authority, are Stratman and Burton entitled to specific performance against Leisnoi, Koniag’s successor?

The majority concludes, and I agree, that under Alaska corporations law, Koniag acquired all of the rights, powers, interest and obligations of Leisnoi as a result of the merger, and that, at the time of the Strat-man Agreement, Koniag had the authority to contract to…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. 5303 Realty Corp. v. O & Y Equity Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1984
  2. Municipality of Anchorage v. SchneiderAlaska Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Blake v. GilbertAlaska Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Hall v. Add-Ventures, Ltd.Alaska Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Mohican Valley, Inc. v. MacDonaldDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984

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