Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

466 S.W.3d 448

Prochazka v. Bee-Three Development, LLC

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Decided June 17, 2015

Court of Appeals of Arkansas · decided 2015-06-17

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 2025

5 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2015-06-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Bart F. Virden, Judge,

¶1concurring.

¶2I concur with the result reached by the majority in this summary-judgment case. While I see no ambiguity in the language regarding termination of the contract. I agree that the case should be remanded for trial because I believe there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the buyer’s “intended use” and whether the sellers’ property was suitable for such use.

/466/sw3d/448 · .json · Public domain