Case Conclusion Date: 11.30.1983
Practice Area: Construction and development
Outcome: We were able to defeat Plaintiff's case.
Description: Plaintiff claimed that Defendant had breached a contract. Plaintiff wanted to put extreme financial pressure on Defendant by asking for specific performance and trying to delay the litigation by getting a "legislative continuance" at a time when the interest rate my client was paying on construction debt was 18%+. We defeated the request for a continuance and got summary judgment on the issue of specific performance. The Plaintiff appealed and my partner, Pete Meeker won the appeal.