statement in a whereas clause (Connecticut) · Go Syfert
← Connecticut issues

statement in a whereas clause in Connecticut

5 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 2004–2026 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
William Aramony v. United Way Of Americagreen
ca2 · 2001 · cited in 3 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2004–2016
2 sentences

2016The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit also has "held that [a]lthough a statement in a whereas clause may be useful in interpreting an ambiguous operative clause in a contract, it cannot create any right beyond those arising from the operative terms of the document." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Aramony v. United Way of America , 254 F.3d 403 , 413 (2d Cir.2001) ; accord Abraham Zion Corp. v. Lebow , 761 F.2d 93 , 103 (2d Cir. 1985) ; Genovese Drug Stores v. Connecticut Packing Co. , 732 F.2d 286 , 291 (2d Cir.1984).

2014See, e.g., Ara- mony v. United Way of America, 254 F.3d 403 , 413 (2d Cir. 2001) (‘‘we have held that although a statement in a whereas clause may be useful in interpreting an ambiguous operative clause in a contract, it cannot create any right beyond those arising from the operative terms of the document’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]); Stowers v. Community Medical Center, Inc., 340 Mont. 116, 121 , 172 P.3d 1252 (2007) (‘‘while ‘whereas’ clauses cannot be permitted to control over the express provisions of a contract, they are to be read in conjunction with the operative portions of th

23
Abraham Zion Corp. v. Lebowgreen
ca2 · 1985 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2016–2026
2 sentences

2026Wolfe, supra, § 7.11, p. 7-108 n.21; see also Abraham Zion Corp. v. Lebow, 761 F.2d 93 , 103 (2d Cir. 1985) (“[a]lthough a statement in a whereas clause may be useful in interpreting an ambiguous operative clause in a contract, it cannot create any right beyond those arising from the operative terms of the document” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2016The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit also has "held that [a]lthough a statement in a whereas clause may be useful in interpreting an ambiguous operative clause in a contract, it cannot create any right beyond those arising from the operative terms of the document." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Aramony v. United Way of America , 254 F.3d 403 , 413 (2d Cir.2001) ; accord Abraham Zion Corp. v. Lebow , 761 F.2d 93 , 103 (2d Cir. 1985) ; Genovese Drug Stores v. Connecticut Packing Co. , 732 F.2d 286 , 291 (2d Cir.1984).

22
Johnson v. Johnsongreen
fladistctapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
1 sentence

2004Colo. 1994); Johnson v. Johnson, 725 So. 2d 1209, 1212 (Fla. App.), review denied, 735 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 1999); Jones v. Paducah, 283 Ky. 628, 632 , 142 S.W.2d 365 (Ky. App. 1940); McKinnon v. Baker, 220 Neb. 314, 317 , 370 N.W.2d 492 (1985); Rubenstein Bros. v. Ole of 34th Street, Inc., 101 Misc. 2d 563, 567 , 421 N.Y.S.2d 534 (1979).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
McKinnon v. Baker green
neb · 1985
2 sentences

2014See, e.g., Ara- mony v. United Way of America, 254 F.3d 403 , 413 (2d Cir. 2001) (‘‘we have held that although a statement in a whereas clause may be useful in interpreting an ambiguous operative clause in a contract, it cannot create any right beyond those arising from the operative terms of the document’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]); Stowers v. Community Medical Center, Inc., 340 Mont. 116, 121 , 172 P.3d 1252 (2007) (‘‘while ‘whereas’ clauses cannot be permitted to control over the express provisions of a contract, they are to be read in conjunction with the operative portions of th

2014See, e.g., Ara- mony v. United Way of America, 254 F.3d 403 , 413 (2d Cir. 2001) (‘‘we have held that although a statement in a whereas clause may be useful in interpreting an ambiguous operative clause in a contract, it cannot create any right beyond those arising from the operative terms of the document’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]); Stowers v. Community Medical Center, Inc., 340 Mont. 116, 121 , 172 P.3d 1252 (2007) (‘‘while ‘whereas’ clauses cannot be permitted to control over the express provisions of a contract, they are to be read in conjunction with the operative portions of th

22004–2014
Genovese Drug Stores, Inc. v. Connecticut Packing Company, Inc., and Fotomat Corporation green
ca2 · 1984
1 sentence

2016The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit also has "held that [a]lthough a statement in a whereas clause may be useful in interpreting an ambiguous operative clause in a contract, it cannot create any right beyond those arising from the operative terms of the document." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Aramony v. United Way of America , 254 F.3d 403 , 413 (2d Cir.2001) ; accord Abraham Zion Corp. v. Lebow , 761 F.2d 93 , 103 (2d Cir. 1985) ; Genovese Drug Stores v. Connecticut Packing Co. , 732 F.2d 286 , 291 (2d Cir.1984).

12016–2016
Stowers v. Community Medical Center, Inc. green
mont · 2007
2 sentences

2014See, e.g., Ara- mony v. United Way of America, 254 F.3d 403 , 413 (2d Cir. 2001) (‘‘we have held that although a statement in a whereas clause may be useful in interpreting an ambiguous operative clause in a contract, it cannot create any right beyond those arising from the operative terms of the document’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]); Stowers v. Community Medical Center, Inc., 340 Mont. 116, 121 , 172 P.3d 1252 (2007) (‘‘while ‘whereas’ clauses cannot be permitted to control over the express provisions of a contract, they are to be read in conjunction with the operative portions of th

2014See, e.g., Ara- mony v. United Way of America, 254 F.3d 403 , 413 (2d Cir. 2001) (‘‘we have held that although a statement in a whereas clause may be useful in interpreting an ambiguous operative clause in a contract, it cannot create any right beyond those arising from the operative terms of the document’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]); Stowers v. Community Medical Center, Inc., 340 Mont. 116, 121 , 172 P.3d 1252 (2007) (‘‘while ‘whereas’ clauses cannot be permitted to control over the express provisions of a contract, they are to be read in conjunction with the operative portions of th

12014–2014
State v. Greene green
conn · 2004
1 sentence

2004The plaintiff argues that the sixth “whereas” clause at the beginning of the premarital agreement refers to “the Husband’s Disclosure Statement and the Wife’s Disclosure Statement attached hereto.” (Emphasis added.) She argues that because the “whereas” clause of the agreement contemplates the attachment of the disclosures, failure to attach the disclosures renders the contract incomplete and deficient. “[R]ecitals in a contract, such as whereas clauses, are merely explanations of the circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract, and are not binding obligations unless referred to in

12004–2004
State v. Rosario green
conn · 2004
1 sentence

2004The plaintiff argues that the sixth “whereas” clause at the beginning of the premarital agreement refers to “the Husband’s Disclosure Statement and the Wife’s Disclosure Statement attached hereto.” (Emphasis added.) She argues that because the “whereas” clause of the agreement contemplates the attachment of the disclosures, failure to attach the disclosures renders the contract incomplete and deficient. “[R]ecitals in a contract, such as whereas clauses, are merely explanations of the circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract, and are not binding obligations unless referred to in

12004–2004
Demorais v. Wisniowski green
connappct · 2004
2 sentences

2004The plaintiff argues that the sixth “whereas” clause at the beginning of the premarital agreement refers to “the Husband’s Disclosure Statement and the Wife’s Disclosure Statement attached hereto.” (Emphasis added.) She argues that because the “whereas” clause of the agreement contemplates the attachment of the disclosures, failure to attach the disclosures renders the contract incomplete and deficient. “[R]ecitals in a contract, such as whereas clauses, are merely explanations of the circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract, and are not binding obligations unless referred to in

2004The plaintiff argues that the sixth “whereas” clause at the beginning of the premarital agreement refers to “the Husband’s Disclosure Statement and the Wife’s Disclosure Statement attached hereto.” (Emphasis added.) She argues that because the “whereas” clause of the agreement contemplates the attachment of the disclosures, failure to attach the disclosures renders the contract incomplete and deficient. “[R]ecitals in a contract, such as whereas clauses, are merely explanations of the circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract, and are not binding obligations unless referred to in

12004–2004
Rubinstein Bros. v. Olé of 34th Street, Inc. green
nycivct · 1979
2 sentences

2004Colo. 1994); Johnson v. Johnson, 725 So. 2d 1209, 1212 (Fla. App.), review denied, 735 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 1999); Jones v. Paducah, 283 Ky. 628, 632 , 142 S.W.2d 365 (Ky. App. 1940); McKinnon v. Baker, 220 Neb. 314, 317 , 370 N.W.2d 492 (1985); Rubenstein Bros. v. Ole of 34th Street, Inc., 101 Misc. 2d 563, 567 , 421 N.Y.S.2d 534 (1979).

2004Colo. 1994); Johnson v. Johnson, 725 So. 2d 1209, 1212 (Fla. App.), review denied, 735 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 1999); Jones v. Paducah, 283 Ky. 628, 632 , 142 S.W.2d 365 (Ky. App. 1940); McKinnon v. Baker, 220 Neb. 314, 317 , 370 N.W.2d 492 (1985); Rubenstein Bros. v. Ole of 34th Street, Inc., 101 Misc. 2d 563, 567 , 421 N.Y.S.2d 534 (1979).

12004–2004
Jones v. City of Paducah green
kyctapphigh · 1940
2 sentences

2004Colo. 1994); Johnson v. Johnson, 725 So. 2d 1209, 1212 (Fla. App.), review denied, 735 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 1999); Jones v. Paducah, 283 Ky. 628, 632 , 142 S.W.2d 365 (Ky. App. 1940); McKinnon v. Baker, 220 Neb. 314, 317 , 370 N.W.2d 492 (1985); Rubenstein Bros. v. Ole of 34th Street, Inc., 101 Misc. 2d 563, 567 , 421 N.Y.S.2d 534 (1979).

2004Colo. 1994); Johnson v. Johnson, 725 So. 2d 1209, 1212 (Fla. App.), review denied, 735 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 1999); Jones v. Paducah, 283 Ky. 628, 632 , 142 S.W.2d 365 (Ky. App. 1940); McKinnon v. Baker, 220 Neb. 314, 317 , 370 N.W.2d 492 (1985); Rubenstein Bros. v. Ole of 34th Street, Inc., 101 Misc. 2d 563, 567 , 421 N.Y.S.2d 534 (1979).

12004–2004

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check