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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 17 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 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Menendez.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Menendez Anchor | green | “if the language used in an insurance policy is plain and unambiguous, a court must interpret the policy in accordance with the plain meaning of the language used so as to give effect to the policy as it was written.” | 9 |
| 2 | Travelers Indem. Co. v. PCR INC. | green | “if the language used in an insurance policy is plain and unambiguous, a court must interpret the policy in accordance with the plain meaning of the language used so as to give effect to the policy as it was written.” | 8 |
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.