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 4 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 Friendswood Development Co. v. McDade + Co..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Friendswood Development Co. v. McDade + Co. Anchor | green | “a court may consider the parties' interpretations of the contract through extrinsic or parol evidence only after a contract is first determined to be ambiguous.” | 8 |
| 2 | Cantley v. Gulf Production Co. | green | “it is presumed that a grantor has no intention of reserving a fee in a narrow strip of land adjoining the land conveyed when it ceases to be of use to him, unless such fee is clearly reserved.” | 5 |
| 3 | French v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. | green | “because 'once a dispute arises over meaning, it can hardly be expected that the parties will agree on what meaning was intended,' courts use canons of construction to help ascertain the parties' intent.” | 4 |
| 4 | Centerpoint Energy Houston Electric, L.L.P. v. Old TJC Co. | green | “a court may consider the parties' interpretations of the contract through extrinsic or parol evidence only after a contract is first determined to be ambiguous.” | 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.