green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
8.4 score
“although extrinsic evidence may not be admitted to contradict the parties' intentions as expressed in the writing, it can be admitted to demonstrate that ambiguity exists.”
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Metabank v. Conduent Business Services LLC
although extrinsic evidence may not be admitted to contradict the parties' intentions as expressed in the writing, it can be admitted to demonstrate that ambiguity exists.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
ZVI Construction Co., LLC v. Levy
it is fundamental that 'the joint defense privilege cannot be waived without the consent of all parties to the defense
cited
Cited "see"
Engineered Products Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc.
See John Morrell & Co. v. Local Union 304A of the United Food and Commercial Workers, AFL-CIO, 913 F.2d 544, 556 (8th Cir.1990), ce rt. denied, 500 U.S. 905 , 111 S.Ct. 1683 , 114 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Buckner
See *914 Ewing v. U.S., 914 F.2d 499, 502-03 (4th Cir.1990) (rejecting argument that prior to assessment taxpayer had no tax liability and therefore no “payment of’ taxes was due) (cert. denied, 500 U.S. 905 , 111 S.Ct. 1683 , 114 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991)).
cited
Cited "see"
Sithon Maritime Co. v. Holiday Mansion
See Rajala v. Allied Corp., 919 F.2d 610, 626 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 905 , 111 S.Ct. 1685 , 114 L.Ed.2d 80 (1991); Sipes v. Crum, 204 Kan. 591 , 464 P.2d 1, 6 (1970).
discussed
Cited "see"
Williams v. Dresser Industries, Inc.
See Rajala v. Allied Corp., 919 F.2d 610, 623 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 905 , 111 S.Ct. 1685 , 114 L.Ed.2d 80 (1991); Domed Stadium Hotel, Inc. v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 732 F.2d 480, 485 (5th Cir.1984); Bright v. Land O’Lakes, Inc., 844 F.2d 436, 440 (7th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Davsko v. Golden Harvest Products, Inc.
See Rajala v. Allied Corp., 919 F.2d 610, 626 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 905 , 111 S.Ct. 1685 , 114 L.Ed.2d 80 (1991); Sipes v. Crum, 204 Kan. 591 , 464 P.2d 1, 6 (1970).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum
(2×)
Accord John Morrell & Co. v. Local Union 304A, 913 F.2d 544 , 555-56 (8th Cir.1990) (recognizing and sustaining “joint defense” privilege as to an internal memorandum written by corporate general counsel that was shared with codefendants in another case), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 905 , 111 S.Ct. 1683 , 114 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re: Grand Jury v.
Accord John Morrell & Co. v. Local Union 304A, 913 F.2d 544 , 555-56 (8th Cir. 1990) (recognizing and sustaining “joint defense” privilege as to an internal memorandum written by corporate general counsel that was shared with codefendants in another case), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 905 (1991) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. United States
See Ewing v. United States, 914 F.2d 499, 503-04 (4th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 905 , 111 S.Ct. 1683 , 114 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991); Ameel v. United States, 426 F.2d 1270, 1273 (6th Cir.1970); Lewyt Corp. v. Comm’r of I.R.S., 215 F.2d 518, 522 (2d Cir.1954), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 349 U.S. 237 , 75 S.Ct. 736 , 99 L.Ed. 1029 (1955); Blatt v. United States, 830 F.Supp. 882, 886-87 (D.S.C. 1993), aff'd, 34 F.3d 252 (4th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Slovacek v. United States
See Alexander v. United States, 44 F.3d 328, 332-33 (5th Cir.1995) (citing Ewing v. United States, 914 F.2d 499, 505 (4th Cir.1990) (holding that § 7121 closing agreement does not bar refund claim based on statute of limitations), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 905 , 111 S.Ct. 1683 , 114 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Arst v. Stifel, Nicolaus
(2×)
See Rajala v. Allied Corp. , 919 F.2d 610, 614 (10th Cir. 1990) (citing Denison State Bank v. Madeira , 640 P.2d 1235, 1241 (Kan. 1982)), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 905 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rodger M. Arst v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc., and Odis E. Shoaf, Jr.
(2×)
See Rajala v. Allied Corp., 919 F.2d 610, 614 (10th Cir. 1990) (citing Denison State Bank v. Madeira, 230 Kan. 684 , 640 P.2d 1235, 1241 (1982)), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 905 , 111 S.Ct. 1685 , 114 L.Ed.2d 80 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Cholier Incorporated v. Torch Energy
See Rajala v. Allied Corp., 919 F.2d 610, 615 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 905 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re In-Store Advertising Securities Litigation
See John Morrell & Co. v. Local Union 304A, United Food and Commercial Workers, 913 F.2d 544, 556 (8th Cir.1990) (protection “cannot be waived without the consent of all parties to the defense”), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 905 , 111 S.Ct. 1683 , 114 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991); In re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793, 809 (D.C.Cir.1982) (protection is “not automatically waived by any disclosure to a third party”). 1.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Y & A Group Securities Litigation
See John Morrell & Co. v. Local Union 304A, 913 F.2d 544 , 562 (8th Cir.1990) (citing to other instances where court proceedings concluded before arbitration did), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 905 , 111 S.Ct. 1683 , 114 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Arst v. Stifel Nicolaus & Co., Inc.
See Rajala v. Allied Corp., 919 F.2d 610, 613-14 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 905 , 111 S.Ct. 1685 , 114 L.Ed.2d 80 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ewart v. Y & A Group, Inc.
See John Morrell & Co. v. Local Union 304A, 913 F.2d 544 , 562 (8th Cir.1990) (citing to other instances where court proceedings concluded before arbitration did), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 905 , 111 S.Ct. 1683 , 114 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Solomon Blatt, Jr., as of the Estate of Solomon Blatt v. United States
See Ewing v. United States, 914 F.2d 499 (4th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 905 , 111 S.Ct. 1683 , 114 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
See also Camping Construction Co. v. District Council of Iron Workers, 915 F.2d 1333 (9th Cir.1990), ce rt. denied, 500 U.S. 905 , 111 S.Ct. 1684 , 114 L.Ed.2d 79 (1991), and cert. denied, 500 U.S. 953 , 111 S.Ct. 2260 , 114 L.Ed.2d 713 (1991)(holding that an issue over whether a "pre-hire” collective-bargaining agreement had been repudiated was a labor dispute within the meaning of the Norris-LaGuardia Act and that injunc-tive relief staying arbitration thereunder was, therefore, unavailable). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Siemens Medical Systems, Inc. v. Nuclear Cardiology Systems, Inc.
See, e.g., John Morrell & Co. v. Local Union 304A, 913 F.2d 544 , 563 (8th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 905 , 111 S.Ct. 1683 , 114 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991); Dyndul v. *1434 Dyndul, 620 F.2d 409, 412 (3d Cir.1980) (“Finality for issue preclusion purposes is a more ‘pliant’ concept than it would be in other contexts..... [Finality] may mean little more than that the litigation of a particular issue has reached such a point that a court sees no really good reason for permitting it to be litigated again.”).
Hejl
v.
City of Austin
v.
City of Austin
No. 90-1391.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 29, 1991.
Published
Citer courts: Massachusetts Appeals Court (1) · N.D. Texas (1)
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.