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.
8 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 104 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 E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Shell Oil Co..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Shell Oil Co. Anchor | green | “in upholding the intentions of the parties, a court must construe the agreement as a whole, giving effect to all provisions therein.” | 25 |
| 2 | Estate of Osborn Ex Rel. Osborn v. Kemp | green | “an unreasonable interpretation produces an absurd result or one that no reasonable person would have accepted when entering the contract.” | 21 |
| 3 | Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. v. American Motorists Insurance Co. | green | “a contract is not rendered ambiguous simply because the parties do not agree upon its proper construction.” | 20 |
| 4 | E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Shell Oil Co. | green | “the meaning which arises from a particular portion of an agreement cannot control the meaning of the entire agreement where such inference runs counter to the agreement's overall scheme or plan.” | 13 |
| 5 | GMG Capital Investments, LLC v. Athenian Venture Partners I | green | “when interpreting a contract, the court will give priority to the parties' intentions as reflected in the four corners of the agreement.” | 10 |
| 6 | Eagle Industries, Inc. v. DeVilbiss Health Care, Inc. | green | “in construing an ambiguous contractual provision, a court may consider evidence of prior agreements and communications of the parties as well as trade usage or course of dealing.” | 7 |
| 7 | In Re Viking Pump, Inc. and Warren Pumps, LLC Insurance Appeals | green | “a contract is ambiguous only when the provisions in controversy are reasonably or fairly susceptible of different interpretations or may have two or more different meanings.” | 4 |
| 8 | Pope Investments LLC v. Marilyn Abrams Living Trust | green | “it is not the job of a court to relieve sophisticated parties of the burdens of contracts they wish they had drafted differently but in fact did not.” | 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.