Legal Opinion

Spinsky v. Kay

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided February 28, 1990No. 71A04-8810-CV-339PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CONOVER, Judge.

Defendants-Appellants Anthony Paul Spinsky and Florence M. Spinsky (collectively, Spinsky) appeal the trial court's judgment in favor of Plaintif{-Appellee Carl Kay (Kay).

We affirm.

Spinsky presents five issues for our review, 1 which we restate as:

1. whether the trial court erred in ordering specific performance of an option to purchase real property when the purchase price was to be determined by appraisal;

2. whether the court erred in its determination of the property's worth;

8. whether the trial court erred in its determination of when the purchase option could be exercised;

4…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. ArmstrongIndiana Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Bud Wolf Chevrolet, Inc. v. RobertsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. TrainaIndiana Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Briggs v. Clinton County Bank & Trust Co. of FrankfortIndiana Court of Appeals · 1983
  5. Coles v. PeckIndiana Supreme Court · 1884

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Dahlin v. Amoco Oil Corp.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1991
  2. United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. IraIndiana Court of Appeals · 1991
  3. Wenning v. CalhounIndiana Court of Appeals · 2005
  4. Dominion Investments v. YasechkoDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 1991
  5. Dahlin v. Amoco Oil Corp.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1991

1 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