5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 23 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 Habeck v. David MacDonald, M.D., P.C..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Habeck v. David MacDonald, M.D., P.C. Anchor | green | “if the language of the contract is clear and unambiguous, and the intent is apparent from its face, there is no room for further interpretation.” | 5 |
| 2 | Wachter Development, L.L.C. v. Gomke | green | “extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent may be considered and the terms of the contract and the parties' intent become questions of fact.” | 5 |
| 3 | National Bank of Harvey v. International Harvester Co. | green | “a contract may be explained by reference to the circumstances under which it was made.” | 5 |
| 4 | Bohn v. Johnson | green | “a determination of ambiguity is but the starting point in the search for the parties' ambiguously expressed intentions,” | 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.