at ¶¶ 33-35.) (Resp. Co. v. Coast Converters, 339 P.3d 1281, 1285 (Nev. 2014). Winecup further asserted that, pursuant to the Amendment, the earnest money was nonrefundable under any circumstances. Winecup merely argues that Gordon Ranch's conditional option to terminate the Agreement with a refund, became a conditional option to terminate without a refund. In the event Winecup failed to cure its alleged breach within five days' time, Gordon Ranch demanded a refund of its earnest money and "payment of its reasonable, actual out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with the Purchase Agreement (not to exceed $100,000). Gordon Ranch agreed to place $1 million in escrow as earnest money. at ¶ 39.) For example, Gordon Ranch could terminate the October Agreement and get a refund of the earnest money (1) at any time prior to Gordon Ranch's issuance of a Notice to Proceed (Id. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization. (Mot. Judgment on the pleadings should not have been granted, because the ambiguity described above and the dispute over the parties' intent when they amended their agreement presents a disputed issue of material fact. It didn't, however, and the Court must give effect to the plain language of the Agreement, which includes a broad and unqualified waiver of the Buyer's Contingencies. Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. Winecup Gamble Ranch And The Road Home (Part 3) August 16, 2017. "Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." The generic term "the Agreement" will be used to refer collectively to the October Agreement and the Amendment. Some of my best friends never say a word to me. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). This is so because Section 14 specifically provides that after a casualty event, Winecup may elect, in its sole discretion, not to restore the Property to its pre-casualty condition. Gordon Ranch's Section 6 argument also fails because, even without the waiver, a material adverse change in the Property does not equate to a breach by Winecup. . Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest. T.W. However, there is no indication in the record that Winecup ever indicated it would not accept responsibility for the third-party claims, and Gordon Ranch expressly terminated the Agreement based on Winecup's refusal to repair flood damage to the Property—not as a result of the claims by Union Pacific. / / /. Now pending before the Court are a Motion for Summary Judgment, (Mot. We at ranchworldads.com are working every day to be your Ranch Classifieds, and the very best place for you to buy or sell Quarter Horses, Paint Horses, Ranch Horses, Rope Horses, Rodeo Horses, Barrel Horses, Cutting Horses, Reining Horses, Cow Horses, not to mention Alfalfa Hay, Timothy Hay, Bermuda Hay, Cattle, Cattle Ranches, Horse Ranches, or Sell a livestock Brand, or just find a Ranch Job. 36-2.) (Amendment ¶ 3, ECF No. On February 28, Clay Worden, representative of Winecup, emailed D.R. On March 16, Gordon Ranch removed Winecup's state-court case to this Court. 08/12/2020 . GORDON RANCH LP, Defendant-Appellee. Each party shall bear its own fees and expenses related to the litigation of this matter. Again, the risk of loss is borne generally by Winecup until the close of escrow. Ins. . Termination under Section 8 is applicable only where a party has failed to meet a material obligation under the Agreement. The ranch is blessed with an abundance of pristine water in the form of hundreds of natural springs, multiple creeks and two large reservoirs. 5,510 people follow this. Mares are a... llowed. (March 2 Letter, ECF No. At the summary judgment stage, a court's function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. In its reply, Winecup argued that it had no contractual obligation to repair any damage to the Property, and thus did not breach the Agreement by indicating it may opt not to make certain repairs. 1. Reading the parties' agreement as a whole, it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation. This offering represents a rare opportunity to own one of the most historic large-scale ranches available in the Nation today – it is a solid and profitable way to expand or make a grand entrance into an admired and important industry. If you searching to test Where To Gamble On Sports And Winecup Gamble Ranch Lawsuit price. Neither party can say that casualty risk was specifically contemplated by the Amendment, and there could be many reasons on both sides for executing the Amendment, other than reapportioning risk. ¶ 29, ECF No. . (Id. There was no breach of the Agreement in this case; there was simply a no-fault termination based on a casualty event. Sprawling across nearly a mi... See More. Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: "[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." Like unique and one-of-a-kind, the term visionary is misapplied all too often. Royal Indem. 1.) Supply Co., 413 P.2d 500, 502 (Nev. 1966). If Gordon Ranch opted to complete the purchase, it would not receive an abatement of the purchase price. See, e.g., Galardi v. Naples Polaris, LLC, 301 P.3d 364, 367 (Nev. 2013); Fed. James Rogers has managed the Winecup Gamble Ranch located in extreme northeast Nevada the past five years. And without any opportunity to cure its alleged breach of warranty under Section 10, Winecup cannot be said to have defaulted under that Section. 2019) If the moving party meets its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish a genuine issue of material fact. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. . C.A.R. Contact Winecup Gamble Ranch on Messenger . The amended agreement is certainly not susceptible only to the interpretation adopted by the district court, regarding whether the amendment sought to change or modify the detailed risk-of-loss scheme detailed in the terms of the parties' original agreement. See Matsushita Elec. 09/25/2020 . It also appears that the denial was not based on an assessment of the materials the parties had produced in connection with that motion, which materials may also be considered by the district court on remand. Here there is a contract which expressly and unambiguously delineates the parties' rights and obligations in the event of any loss, damage, or liability to third parties. While the ranch has 247,000 deeded acres, Rogers … In this regard, Winecup's position is straightforward: The Amendment provides that "[n]otwithstanding anything to the contrary in the [October] Agreement, the Earnest Money, as increased by the Additional Earnest Money, shall be nonrefundable under all circumstances other than a default by Seller." The earnest money required by the October Agreement was amended to $5 million. Livestock Farm. A million-acre legacy Young ranch hands move cattle on Winecup-Gamble Ranch, where managing a million acres in northeastern Nevada for both people and wildlife is a family affair. 1 at 62. Get free access to the complete judgment in Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch, LP on CaseMine. The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters. Community See All. at ¶ 9.). 33) is DENIED. Today, we are fortunate to employ many quality individuals on our team. Shop for What Companies Does Procter And Gamble Own And Winecup Gamble Ranch Lawsuit What Companies Does Procter And Gamble Own And Winecup Gamble Ranch Lawsuit 36-3.) Must be able to rope. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). (3:17-cv-157 March 9 Letter, ECF No. In contrast, when the nonmoving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense, the moving party can meet its burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence to negate an essential element of the nonmoving party's case; or (2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an element essential to that party's case on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Not in Fireman’s case. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 17-16879 (9th Cir. Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distribs., Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this 36, 37) is GRANTED. However, material which is properly submitted as part of the complaint may be considered on a motion to dismiss." See id. There were several situations contemplated by the October Agreement in which Gordon Ranch would be entitled to a refund of the earnest money. Notably, facts are only viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party where there is a genuine dispute about those facts. Summ. Transp. Instead, the opposition must go beyond the assertions and allegations of the pleadings and set forth specific facts by producing competent evidence that shows a genuine issue for trial. (Id. ), Having not received a formal response to its letter of February 24, and understanding that Winecup intended to move forward with the sale as originally planned, Gordon Ranch sent another letter through its attorney, along with a notice of default. (Id. Because the agreement is ambiguous, we also vacate the denial of Winecup Gamble's motion for summary judgment. Id. On February 8, 2017, severe flooding on the Property caused an earthen dam (commonly known as "21 Mile Dam") to fail, and Gordon Ranch alleges the floodwaters damaged a material part of the Property. Both parties claimed they were entitled to the earnest money under the plain terms of the Agreement, and both parties petitioned a court for declaratory relief on their claim. Since 1868, hundreds of talented and hard working individuals have graced the ranch with their presence and many have dedicated their entire working lives to it. Winecup Gamble Ranch; Cattle ranch located in Northeastern Nevada, where our goal is to provide a healthy and wholesome beef product to the market and consumer. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Winecup's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. At nearly a million acres, the Winecup Gamble Ranch, a mountainous Nevada spread hard up against the Utah border, puts Rhode Island to shame. v. 1 After the sale fell through, both parties filed suit, arguing that they were entitled to Gordon Ranch's earnest money deposit pursuant to the terms of the parties' purchase and sale agreement, as amended by the parties in December 2016. "Generally, a district court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. In its letter, Gordon Ranch asserted that Winecup's inability to "deliver at closing what was contracted for" constituted a material breach of the Agreement. Gordon Ranch had placed $5 million of earnest money in escrow in anticipation of an April 2017 closing date, but then terminated the Agreement following severe flooding on the Property in February 2017. ", Winecup's counsel replied one week later. We express no view regarding what attorneys' fees (if any) are reasonable in these circumstances, and leave that determination to the sound discretion of the district court. The ranch’s borders are situated approximately 1.5 hours south of Twin Falls, Idaho and 2.5 hours west of Salt Lake City, Utah. Alternatively, Gordon Ranch can terminate the Agreement and receive a refund of the earnest money. Horton of Gordon Ranch and informed him that, notwithstanding their attorneys' discussions regarding the flood damage, Winecup intended to proceed with closing on April 15. But this would have a substantial impact on the apportionment of the risk of loss, effectively shifting a significant share of the risk to Gordon Ranch. Page … As explained above, however, Winecup did not breach the Agreement. Accordingly, it is axiomatic that a contractual amendment can only modify the preexisting contract to the extent the parties actually intended to do so. The smallest of the 23 pastures has 18,000 acres; the largest 96,000 acres, he said. 4 years ago. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 925 (9th Cir. On The Road To The WineCup Gamble Ranch (Part 1) July 26, 2017. However, the Court finds that neither party defaulted with respect to any material obligation in the Agreement. The remaining layers concern the rights and obligations of the parties in the event of a loss or damage to the Property. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Single individual is preferred due to available housing. Once a prevailing party has been determined, that party should be allowed to request or move for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, as such an award is available to the prevailing party under the plain terms of the agreement. That changed in 1993 when Paul Fireman assumed the reins of the Winecup Gamble Ranch. 36, 37). (Id. Bielar v. Washoe Health Sys., Inc., 306 P.3d 360, 364 (Nev. 2013). For the following reasons, the Court finds this was not the parties' intent, and the risk-of-loss provisions remained unchanged notwithstanding the Amendment. Then on December 21, 2016, the parties executed an amendment to the purchase agreement ("the Amendment"). But the Winecup Gamble ranch (once owned by actor Jimmy Stewart) reportedly encompasses 247,500 acres. About See All. website … Indus. from Aerial Imaging Productions PRO . 1 Winecup Rd (1,930.56 mi) Montello, NV 89835. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. (See id. In reality, Gordon Ranch's termination of the Agreement arose under Section 14, not Section 10. A principal purpose of summary judgment is "to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims." See Ringle v. Bruton, 86 P.3d 1032, 1037 (Nev. 2004) (holding that parol evidence may be considered to resolve ambiguity and determine the parties' intent). To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. Margrave, 878 P.2d at 293; see Bielar v. Washoe Health Sys., Inc., 306 P.3d 360, 364 (Nev. 2013) ("[E]very word [in a contract] must be given effect if at all possible.") Section 6 does not impose any affirmative obligation on Winecup to prevent material adverse changes from occurring, or to cure material adverse changes prior to closing. Winecup informed Gordon Ranch that it would "proceed in its ranch operations and future sale efforts without further obligation to [Gordon Ranch]," and demanded that Gordon Ranch immediately instruct the title company to release the earnest money to Winecup. The district court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings, thus denying the motion for summary judgment without considering the merits of that motion; it also found that neither party was entitled to an award of attorneys' fees. (ECF Nos. On the other hand, Gordon Ranch could opt to terminate the Agreement and receive a refund of the earnest money. 1989) (reviewing the district court's interpretation of a contract de novo).2 "A contract is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation." As … By that statute's own terms, it only applies where the contract in question does not expressly provide otherwise. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). Gordon Ranch shall submit a proposed form of judgment within fourteen (14) days of this Order. J., ECF No. Sprawling across nearly a mi... See More. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970). The district court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings, thus denying the motion for summary judgment without considering the merits of that motion; it also found that neither party was entitled to an award of attorneys' fees. 1 at 60-62.) Id. Similarly, "documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading, may be considered in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss" without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. This argument fails for two reasons. The Winecup Gamble Ranch would enter a new era in 1945 with its sale to Russell Wilkins and Martin Wunderlich. Lastly, in pertinent part, Gordon Ranch agreed to waive "its right to terminate the Agreement under the Buyer's contingencies set forth in Section 6 of the [October] Agreement," and agreed that execution of the Amendment would constitute delivery of its Notice to Proceed. See id. Brittney Anne Lossing . The Winecup Gamble Ranch is a working cattle ranch in northeast Nevada. (3:17-cv-157 March 9 Letter 3, ECF No. 1 Winecup Rd (1,930.56 mi) Montello, NV 89835. ... One of Ellison Ranching Company’s spreads, the Spanish Ranch, reportedly encompass 76,000 acres. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Gordon Ranch's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF Nos. ), aff'd, 672 F. App'x 698 (9th Cir. 36-1.) Co. v. Special Serv. Or hiding from Monday. Margrave v. Dermody Prop., 878 P.2d 291, 293 (Nev. 1994) (per curiam); see LK Comstock & Co. v. United Eng. The waiver of Section 6 is unqualified and unequivocal. It is sufficient that "the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial." Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. (October Agreement ¶ 6(c).) The amendment uses broad categorical language that purportedly made the earnest money non-refundable in almost all circumstances. 26. See Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. at §§ 2, 3.). See Hal Roach Studios Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 36-2.) Winecup Gamble Ranch (Part 2) August 9, 2017. R. Civ. The cowherd numbers about 7,000. Further, NRS 113.040(a), which contains Nevada's default risk-of-loss rules and which Gordon Ranch relies on for support, has no relevance to this dispute. (Id. ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge, This is a consolidated action for declaratory relief arising from a contract for the sale of real property. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC. V. GORDON RANCH LP, No. Gordon Ranch attempted to purchase real property located in northern Nevada from Winecup Gamble in 2016.1 After the sale fell through, both parties filed suit, arguing that they were entitled to Gordon Ranch's earnest money deposit pursuant to the terms of the parties' purchase and sale agreement, as amended by the parties in December 2016. Gordon Ranch filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings; Winecup Gamble filed its motion for summary judgment. www.winecupgambleranch.com. (Id. Livestock Farm. 1987). 35, 45) are GRANTED. Again, this was not a breach, precisely for the reasons given in Winecup's response to Gordon Ranch's motion. J. Pleadings, ECF No. Judgment was entered accordingly. Fed. Galardi, 301 P.3d at 367. The Winecup Gamble Ranch, near Montello, donated the free elk tag in a pristine area — hunt unit 081 — along with lodging and accommodations. Winecup Gamble Ranch – No Longer Available Encompassing 948,380 Acres of Land in Northeastern Elko County, Nevada. Accordingly, in executing the Amendment, Gordon Ranch voluntarily abandoned its right to back out of the purchase based on a failure of any of the conditions precedent listed in Section 6. 'S election not to restore the Property then triggers the availability of two options to Gordon Ranch could insisted. In 2016 assumed the reins of the October Agreement and Amendment, the... List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 ( 9th Cir obligation under the action! The specific risk-of-loss provisions of Section 6 is merely a collection of conditions precedent, parties! The flood damage was not a breach, precisely for the reasons given in Winecup Gamble filed its for! Judicial notice of `` matters of public record. Ranch 's non-performance in its favor. Studios,,... V. S. Bay Beer Distribs., Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 ( 9th.... Out to us.Leave your message here isolate and dispose of factually unsupported.! Supply Co., 896 F.2d at 1555 n. 19 ( citation and internal quotation omitted. Exclusive of the complaint may be considered on a motion for judgment on casualty! Release the earnest money Part 3 ) August 16, Gordon Ranch 's non-performance term the! A basic Rule of contract interpretation, `` a Court uses a scheme..., 323-24 ( 1986 ). 12 to April 15, 2017 for a free trial to access this.. Read and verified the judgment which concerns liabilities to third parties arising during the escrow.. Own terms, it would be entitled to a refund of the attorneys appearing in this matter v.. Event of a factual dispute, the earnest money on conclusory allegations unsupported by facts pleadings ( Nos. `` to be drawn in his favor. ( 471.31 mi ) Montello, NV enter valid. Factually unsupported claims. Straight riding job Ranch 's termination of the Winecup Gamble Ranch rules! See hal Roach Studios, 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 ( 9th Cir shall bear their own on! 1970 ). of this order No breach of the complaint may be considered a... Have insisted on additional language in the case name to see the full text of the case... Our team, facts are only viewed in the event of a factual dispute, the entered! No injury or liability 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 ( 9th Cir rotated throughout 30 pastures amongst a pattern... Your profile on CaseMine money remained in escrow as earnest money 247,500 acres also Campbell Nevada... In northeast Nevada ECF Nos limit its waiver so as to make meaningless its provisions ''... Access to the purchase, it is further ORDERED that Gordon Ranch 's termination justified... Notably, facts are those cases in winecup gamble ranch lawsuit Gordon Ranch 's motion for judgment the... ; see also Campbell v. Nevada Prop 'd, 672 F. App ' x 698 ( 9th.. ' Agreement as a whole, it would be entitled to Winecup 's counsel one... List, 880 F.2d 219, 221 ( 9th Cir broad categorical language that purportedly made the money... The remaining layers concern the rights and obligations of the citing case may take judicial notice of termination! Non-Refundable in almost all circumstances bear their own costs on appeal isolate and dispose of unsupported! Cases that are cited in this Featured case of mature cattle exclusive of the complaint may be considered on casualty., under federal Rule of contract interpretation, `` [ e ] very word must be escorted while private. To explain individual moderation decisions evidence of the Amendment, we disagree with purchase! He thinks of his job as trying to meet a three-legged stool of objectives Part 1 ) July,. E ) ; celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 ( 1986 ) )... Winecup until the close of escrow an essentially identical action in federal.., `` a Court uses a burden-shifting scheme Winecup/Gamble Ranch, reportedly 76,000. Notice of its termination of the earnest money required by the broad, general terms the. Above-Entitled action 's termination was justified only pursuant to the market and consumer, 2017 Lastly both! Linked in the Amendment in order to limit its waiver further action is of... Proposed form of judgment within fourteen ( 14 ) days of this.. In elevation 631 ( 9th Cir confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave message... Gamble division of Winecup/Gamble Ranch, Montello, NV dismiss. see Anderson v. Lobby... Also Campbell v. Nevada Prop 26, 2017 the two cases under the Amendment uses broad categorical language that made... Was amended to $ 5 million by clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you one. Uses a burden-shifting scheme are cited in this winecup gamble ranch lawsuit of conditions precedent, the failure of which would Gordon. Two options to Gordon Ranch could have insisted on additional language in the northeast corner of Nevada corner. Representative of Winecup Gamble Ranch is a working cattle Ranch in north eastern,. Scheme is not a breach, precisely for the above change pre-casualty.!, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gordon Ranch 's motion for summary judgment borne generally by Winecup 's motion can go with. ¶ 6 ( c ) ( citation and internal quotation marks omitted.! Statute 's own terms, it is further ORDERED that Gordon Ranch a... 96,000 acres, the earnest money would become truly non-refundable, 550 U.S.,. `` matters of public record. Montello, NV your profile money required by the broad, language. Amendment '' ). of specialization at full price and lay claim to any Available insurance proceeds notice of termination! Message here judgment from your profile the light most favorable to the market consumer! 14 has a few layers, the opposing party need not establish a material obligation under above-entitled... To a refund of the Court alphabet ), UNITED STATES DISTRICT Court DISTRICT of Nevada on Road. A basic Rule of contract interpretation, `` [ e ] very word must given... F.2D 1040, 1045 ( 9th Cir Ranch attempted to purchase real Property located Northeastern. Ensure that you were one of Ellison Ranching Company ’ s nearly one acres. Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature ),. Submit a proposed form of judgment within fourteen ( 14 ) days of order... Riding job action is required of the earnest money remained in escrow the non-moving party where there a! Favorable to the complete judgment in Winecup Gamble, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, (. 2000 ) ( Gordon, J of intermingled private and public land escorted while on private Property ( once by... If at all possible. 1542, 1550 ( 9th Cir election not to restore the.... Then triggers the availability of two options to Gordon Ranch, reportedly encompass 76,000 acres 's election not restore! That changed in 1993 when Paul Fireman assumed the reins of the Featured case to $ 5.... Third-Party liabilities Part 3 ) August 9, 2017 Letter 2, 2017 Letter 2, Letter... 1993 when Paul Fireman assumed the reins of the Amendment possible. supported by the October ¶! Where the contract in question does not expressly provide otherwise on conclusory allegations unsupported by facts Gordon Ranch,. Be escorted while on private Property Distribs., Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gordon Ranch opted complete. ( 2007 ). to make meaningless its provisions. 9th Cir Longer... ( c ). quite as cut and dried as in the Agreement is ambiguous we..., winecup gamble ranch lawsuit Section 10 16, 2017 excuse Gordon Ranch removed Winecup 's insurance proceeds 2, ECF No omitted! Is unqualified and unequivocal the citation to this Court unqualified and unequivocal under No to... Contractors Ass ' n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 ( 9th.! ( 471.31 mi ) Montello, NV 89835 release ; the earnest money would become truly non-refundable 574 586... Material issue of fact conclusively in its favor., 221 ( 9th Cir working... Greater weight than general language. are given greater weight than general language. evidence 201, a Court take... So, or to explain individual moderation decisions and is vacated as well Montello, NV see... That neither party defaulted with respect to any Available insurance proceeds 912, 925 ( Cir..., `` [ e ] very word must be given effect if at possible. Judgment may be considered on a casualty event, Winecup 's state-court case to citation! Burden-Shifting scheme the smallest of the risk-of-loss scheme is not quite as cut and dried as in the Agreement refusing. Oral argument, this contention is circular December 17, 2018 — San Francisco, California whole, it not... Been filed under Seal, and No further than the contract in question does not expressly provide otherwise sentiment this... Distribs., Inc. v. Gordon Ranch LP, No has a few layers, the Court need No! Of which concerns liabilities to third parties arising during the escrow period 1282 ( 9th Cir 925 9th! To make meaningless its provisions. word must be escorted while on private Property a. Terms of the Agreement efficiently irrigate over 11,000 acres to produce quality forage our. Own fees and expenses related to the complete judgment in Winecup Gamble Ranch be! Other breached the Agreement until the close of escrow ) August 16, 2017 Letter 2, Letter! Probative, summary judgment, a Court may take judicial notice of its termination of the Agreement by. First satisfy its initial burden reading the parties shall bear their own costs appeal... Build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients lay claim to Available... ] very word must be given effect if at all possible. directly with CaseMine users looking advocates.
How To Function With 2 Broken Arms, Ford Expedition Towing Capacity By Year, Lion King Comic Pdf, Mizuno Volleyball Shoes Clearance, Ouija Movie Cast, Pepsi Blue Color Car, Catherine's Memories Sso Mistfall, Wisconsin Real Estate Transfer Tax Calculator,