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.
3 canonical passages across 2 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 Stech v. Panel Mart, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Stech v. Panel Mart, Inc. Anchor | green | “in ascertaining the intention of the parties, a court must construe the instrument as a whole, giving effect to every portion, if possible.” | 5 |
| 2 | Stech v. Panel Mart, Inc. | green | “the first rule in the interpretation of contracts is to give meaning and effect to the intention of the parties as expressed in the language of the contract.” | 5 |
| 3 | Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Systems, Inc. v. St. Joseph Medical Center of Fort Wayne, Inc. | green | “courts may not construe clear and unambiguous provisions, nor may it add provisions not agreed upon by the parties.” | 4 |
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.