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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 33 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 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co. Anchor | green | “the test of admissibility of extrinsic evidence to explain the meaning of a written instrument is not whether it appears to the court to be plain and unambiguous on its face, but whether the offered evidence is relevant to prove a meaning to which the language of the instrument …” | 27 |
| 2 | Jeffrey Hunter Mendler, Dba Jeffrey Hunter v. Winterland Production, Ltd., a California Corporation San Diego Yacht Club, a California Corporation | green | “the fundamental goal of contract interpretation is to give effect to the mutual intent of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting.” | 3 |
| 3 | Kling v. Hallmark Cards Inc. | green | “laches is an equitable time limitation on a party's right to bring suit,” | 3 |
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.