Pope

discussion of issue on appeal satisfies constitutional requirement because “an opinion is not a brief in reply to counsel’s arguments”; “[i]n order to state the reasons, grounds, or principles upon which a decision is based, [an appellate court] need not discuss every case or fact raised by counsel in support of the parties’ positions”].)

3 * * * 1. We begin with the Even St. Parties cross-appeal. We agree it was error for the trial court to summarily adjudicate the declaratory relief claim in Pope’s favor (in her capacity as successor to Roberts) because the record before the court reveals a material dispute of fact requiring trial on the question of who is entitled to the royalty payments in question during the pertinent time period. The document signed by Stewart and Roberts that was sent to BMI in 1976 (the 1976 Assignment) does state Stewart “unconditionally, irrevocably and absolutely assigns to Ken Roberts and/or Ken Roberts Enterprises, Inc. as the Assignee and/or Judgment Creditor of Sylvester Stewart . . . any and all payments . . . to be made by [BMI] to the undersigned Sylvester Stewart pursuant to the terms of the undersigned’s existing agreement with BMI .…