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.
10 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 241 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 Heritage Resources, Inc. v. NationsBank.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Heritage Resources, Inc. v. NationsBank Anchor | green | “we give terms their plain, ordinary, and generally accepted meaning unless the instrument shows that the parties used them in a technical or different sense.” | 52 |
| 2 | National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. CBI Industries, Inc. | green | “the primary concern of a court in construing a written contract is to ascertain the true intent of the parties as expressed in the instrument.” | 41 |
| 3 | Dynegy Midstream Services, Ltd. Partnership v. Apache Corp. | green | “we give contract terms their plain and ordinary meaning unless the instrument indicates the parties intended a different meaning.” | 31 |
| 4 | Dynegy Midstream Services, Ltd. Partnership v. Apache Corp. | green | “a contract is not ambiguous simply because the parties disagree over its meaning.” | 30 |
| 5 | Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America | green | “in construing a contract, a court must ascertain the true intentions of the parties as expressed in the writing itself.” | 27 |
| 6 | National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. CBI Industries, Inc. | green | “if a written contract is so worded that it can be given a definite or certain legal meaning, then it is not ambiguous.” | 27 |
| 7 | Tawes v. Barnes | green | “when discerning the contracting parties' intent, courts must examine the entire agreement and give effect to each provision so that none is rendered meaningless.” | 12 |
| 8 | Heritage Resources, Inc. v. NationsBank | green | “examine the entire document and consider each part with every other part so that the effect and meaning of one part on any other part may be determined.” | 11 |
| 9 | FPL Energy, LLC v. TXU Portfolio Management Co. | green | “we consider the entire writing to harmonize and effectuate all provisions such that none are rendered meaningless.” | 7 |
| 10 | Lenape Resources Corp. v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. | green | “could give rise to a duty to drill an offset well under certain circumstances” | 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.