Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 44 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Rivero v. Rivero.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rivero v. Rivero Anchor | red | “they are not unconscionable, illegal, or in violation of public policy” | 15 |
| 2 | Rivero v. Rivero | red | “parties are free to contract, and the courts will enforce their contracts if they are not unconscionable, illegal, or in violation of public policy.” | 8 |
| 3 | Vaile v. Porsboll | green | “alters the parties' substantive rights, while a clarification involves the district court defining the rights that have already been awarded to the parties” | 5 |
| 4 | Kishner v. Kishner | green | “has inherent power to construe its judgments and decrees for the purpose of removing any ambiguity.” | 4 |
| 5 | Rennels v. Rennels | green | “will generally recognize the preclusive effect of such agreements if they are deemed final.” | 4 |
| 6 | Murphy v. Murphy | green | “should be construed fairly and reasonably, and not too strictly or technically.” | 4 |
| 7 | Aseltine v. Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada | green | “the intention of the district court, . . that the agreement of the parties should be given effect according to its intent and spirit.” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.