Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Investors Thrift Corp. v. Hunt

Invs. Thrift Corp. v. Hunt, 511 F.2d 1161 (8th Cir. 1975)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1975-01-28
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. In this action Investors Thrift Corporation seeks damages for Community National Life Insurance Company’s alleged anticipatory breach of a stock purchase agreement wherein Community National agreed to purchase all the voting stock of Investors Thrift if certain conditions were met.1 The District Court held that Investors Thrift had failed to sustain its burden of proof and dismissed this action as being without merit. We affirm the dismissal on the basis of the District Court’s opinion. (Investors Thrift Corp. v. Hunt, 387 F.Supp. 517 (W.D.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Investors Thrift Corp. v. Hunt. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
2 opinions
INVESTORS THRIFT CORPORATION v. HUNT,511 F.2d 1161(8th Cir. 1975)
INVESTORS THRIFT CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. JOE B. HUNT, INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, AND RECEIVER OF COMMUNITY NATIONAL
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, SUBSTITUTE DEFENDANT FOR COMMUNITY NATIONAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE.
No. 74-1544.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted January 7, 1975.
Decided January 28, 1975.
H. Clay Robinson, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellant.

Don A. Smith, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Hon. Oren Harris, U.S. D.C. Judge.
Before JOHNSEN, Senior Circuit Judge, STEPHENSON and WEBSTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
[1] In this action Investors Thrift Corporation seeks damages for Community National Life Insurance Company's alleged anticipatory breach of a stock purchase agreement wherein Community National agreed to purchase all the voting stock of Investors Thrift if certain conditions were met.1The District Court held that Investors Thrift had failed to sustain its burden of proof and dismissed this action as being without merit.

[2] We affirm the dismissal on the basis of the District Court's opinion. (Investors Thrift Corp. v. Hunt,387 F. Supp. 517(W.D. Ark. 1974) ). Judge Harris has accurately stated the complicated facts which gave rise to this case and has properly applied the law to these facts. No purpose would be served in attempting to elaborate on his well-considered opinion.Page 1228
  1. This is the latest in a series of related cases. Other published opinions in this line include: Vanderboom v. Sexton,460 F.2d 362(8th Cir. 1972); Investors Thrift Corp. v. Sexton,347 F. Supp. 1207(W.D. Ark. 1972); In re Peoples Loan Inv. Co.,316 F. Supp. 13(W.D. Ark. 1970); Vanderboom v. Sexton,294 F. Supp. 1178(W.D. Ark. 1969), rev'd,422 F.2d 1233(8th Cir.), cert. denied,400 U.S. 852,91 S.Ct. 47,27 L.Ed.2d 90(1970); In re Peoples Loan Inv. Co.,292 F. Supp. 594(W.D. Ark. 1968), rev'd,410 F.2d 851(8th Cir. 1969); City Nat'l Bank v. Vanderboom,290 F. Supp. 592(W.D. Ark. 1968), aff'd,422 F.2d 221(8th Cir.), cert. denied,399 U.S. 905,90 S.Ct. 2196,26 L.Ed.2d 560(1970); Miskimins v. City Nat'l Bank,248 Ark. 1194,456 S.W.2d 673(1970).See generallyInvestors Thrift Corp. v. Hunt,387 F. Supp. 517,521, n. 8 and accompanying text (W.D. Ark. 1974). ↩