Theobald v. Chumley

How courts have described this case

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

• “since the optionee is the sole party capable of consummating the option, courts require strict adherence to the option’s terms”
• “since the optionee is the sole party capable of consummating the option, courts require strict adherence to the option’s terms”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Candlelight Properties, LLC v. MHC Operating Ltd. Partnership
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2001-05-29· cited 16×
• Urban Hotel Management Corp. v. Main & Washington Joint Venture
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1986-06-25· cited 11×
• Brokaw v. Roe
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1996-08-09· cited 7×
• Rowland v. Amoco Oil Co.
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1982-03-15· cited 6×
• Lafayette Expo Center, Inc. v. Owens
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1988-12-12· cited 6×

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Ardente v. Horan
  Supreme Court of Rhode Island· 1976-12-02· cited 61×
• Indiana Motorcycle Ass'n v. Hudson
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1980-01-29· cited 32×
• Katz v. Pratt Street Realty Co.
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1970-03-03· cited 25×
• Doolittle v. Fruehauf Corporation
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1976-05-18· cited 19×
• Coons v. Baird
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1970-12-23· cited 14×
• Lawrence v. Ball State University Board of Trustees
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1980-02-07· cited 13×
• Gerardot v. Emenhiser
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1977-06-21· cited 12×
• Bandy v. MYERS
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 1967-06-14· cited 10×
• JR Stone Co., Inc. v. Keate
  Utah Supreme Court· 1978-03-03· cited 8×