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 2 cases, quoted by 30 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 K. Bell & Associates, Inc. v. Lloyd's Underwriters.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | K. Bell & Associates, Inc. v. Lloyd's Underwriters Anchor | green | “the initial interpretation of a contract is a matter of law for the court to decide.” | 18 |
| 2 | Wolff v. Rare Medium, Inc. | green | “in pleading these elements, a plaintiff must identify what provisions of the contract were breached as a result of the acts at issue.” | 7 |
| 3 | Wolff v. Rare Medium, Inc. | green | “a plaintiff must identify what provisions of the contract were breached as a result of the acts at issue.” | 5 |
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.