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.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 20 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 Schenkel & Shultz, Inc. v. Hermon F. Fox & Associates.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Schenkel & Shultz, Inc. v. Hermon F. Fox & Associates Anchor | green | “when an agreement is ambiguous and the intention of the parties is unclear, however, interpretation of the contract is for the jury.” | 9 |
| 2 | State v. Philip Morris USA Inc. | green | “a contract term is ambiguous only when, in the opinion of the court, the language of the contract is fairly and reasonably susceptible to either of the constructions for which the parties contend.” | 4 |
| 3 | State v. Philip Morris USA Inc. | green | “when the terms of a contract are plain and unambiguous, there is no room for construction.” | 4 |
| 4 | Morrell v. Hardin Creek, Inc. | green | “the heart of a contract is the intention of the parties, which is to be ascertained from the expressions used, the subject matter, the end in view, the purpose sought, and the situation of the parties at the time” | 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.