Crow-Spieker 23 v. Robert L. Helms Construction & Development Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a ROFR was not implicated by the sale of the protected property as part of a larger sale agreement, though noting-that the court “would not condone an attempt to evade [the right-holder’s] contractual rights by engineering; the sale of a larger parcel”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).