Peel v. United States, 178 L. Ed. 2d 825 (2011). · Go Syfert
Peel v. United States, 178 L. Ed. 2d 825 (2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“when the contract's language is unambiguous it must be given its 'plain and ordinary' meaning and the court may not look to extrinsic evidence to interpret its provisions.”
29 citation events (29 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Universal Protection Service, Lp v. United States (uscfc, 2016-04-07)
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Universal Protection Service, Lp v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2016 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
when the contract's language is unambiguous it must be given its 'plain and ordinary' meaning and the court may not look to extrinsic evidence to interpret its provisions.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re: Michele Renee Clark
9th Cir. BAP · 2014 · confidence medium
“An adversary proceeding is . . . part of the bankruptcy 4 but it is not the bankruptcy case itself, as illustrated by the 5 fact that the dismissal of an adversary proceeding is an 6 appealable final order even though the bankruptcy [main] case 7 continues.” United States v. Peel, 595 F.3d 763, 768-69 (7th 8 Cir. 2010), cert. denied, Peel v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 994 9 (2011) (citing Marchiando v. Illinois (In re Marchiando), 13 F.3d 10 1111, 1113-14 (7th Cir. 1994)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re: Michele Renee Clark
9th Cir. BAP · 2014 · confidence medium
“An adversary proceeding is . . . part of the bankruptcy 4 but it is not the bankruptcy case itself, as illustrated by the 5 fact that the dismissal of an adversary proceeding is an 6 appealable final order even though the bankruptcy [main] case 7 continues.” United States v. Peel, 595 F.3d 763, 768-69 (7th 8 Cir. 2010), cert. denied, Peel v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 994 9 (2011) (citing Marchiando v. Illinois (In re Marchiando), 13 F.3d 10 1111, 1113-14 (7th Cir. 1994)).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Rodriguez-Ramos
8th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Donnell, 596 F.3d 913, 924 (8th Cir.2010), cert. denied, Donnell v. United States, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 994 , 178 L.Ed.2d 831 (2011).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. San-Miguel (2×)
8th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Burrell, 622 F.3d 961, 965 (8th Cir.2010). "[B]efore an appellate court can correct an error not raised at trial, there must be (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights [and] (4) . . . seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." United States v. Donnell, 596 F.3d 913, 920 (8th Cir.2010) (quoting United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550 (8th Cir.2005)), cert. denied 562 U.S. ___ , 131 S.Ct. 994 , ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2011).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gary E. Peel
v.
United States
No. 10-83.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 18, 2011.
178 L. Ed. 2d 825

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 595 F.3d 763.