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 14 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 Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Turner Construction Co..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Turner Construction Co. Anchor | green | “mere assertion by one that contract language means something to him, where it is otherwise clear, unequivocal and understandable when read in connection with the whole contract, is not in and of itself enough to raise a triable issue of fact.” | 4 |
| 2 | Moore v. Kopel | green | “a contract is not rendered ambiguous just because one of the parties attaches a different, subjective meaning to one of its terms.” | 4 |
| 3 | Raymond Feifer, Nicholas Pocchia, and Edwin Molina v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, Daily News, L.P., and Daily News, L.P. Benefits Program | green | “where, as here, a contract is unambiguous, it is enforced according to its terms, and the court will generally not look 'outside the four corners of the document' to add to or vary it.” | 3 |
| 4 | Slattery Skanska Inc. v. American Home Assurance Co. | green | “that one party to the agreement may attach a particular, subjective meaning to a term that differs from the term's plain meaning does not render the term 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.