Prineville Sawmill Co. v. Longview Fibre Co.
Prineville Sawmill Co. v. Longview Fibre Co.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
For the reasons ably set forth by the district judge, I would affirm.
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
Prineville Sawmill Co. appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Longview Fibre Co. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here except as necessary. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand.
Viewing the 1999 settlement agreement in context, we conclude that Prineville had a reasonable expectation, based on the past performance of the parties, that
We also reverse the grant of summary judgment on the question of whether Longview breached the option purchase agreement. The district court found that Prineville had failed to comply with the requirements of the agreement. However, while Prineville may not have technically fulfilled all of its obligations, we cannot say that this failure constituted a material breach of the agreement. We therefore also reverse the grant of summary judgment for Longview on the option purchase agreement and remand for this issue to proceed to trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.