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 9 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 Brown v. Ginn.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Brown v. Ginn Anchor | green | “extrinsic evidence may be consulted when the plain language of the contract is ambiguous.” | 5 |
| 2 | Martin v. Ray Lackey Enterprises, Inc. | green | “intent is a question of law where the writing is free of any ambiguity which would require resort to extrinsic evidence or the consideration of disputed fact.” | 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.