Court Opinion

ID: 9612940
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:12:30.426232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:23.906272
License: Public Domain

John B. Robbins, Judge, dissenting. I dissent from the majority opinion for the reason clearly stated in Judge Neal’s dissent, but write separately to make the following additional observation. The summary judgment which our court reverses today was granted by the trial court without explanation. Upton had sought summary judgment on four separate bases. All four arguments are addressed in the appellate briefs. Our substituted opinion deals only with the validity of appellant’s business expectancy. The other three bases asserted by Upton, i.e., res judicata, piercing the corporate veil, and tortious interference with land use, are not discussed. If summary judgment was correctly granted on any of those four grounds, our court would be obliged to affirm. I offer no comment on the validity of these other bases, inasmuch as I would affirm for the reason discussed in Judge Neal’s dissent, however, our appellate review is incomplete if we reverse without disposing of the other bases that Upton asserted would support a summary judgment.