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 3 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 Anderson v. Dinkes & Schwitzer, P.C..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Anderson v. Dinkes & Schwitzer, P.C. Anchor | green | “the plaintiff was induced to sign something different from what he or she thought was being signed and only arises if the signer is illiterate, blind, or not a speaker of the language in which the document is written” | 3 |
| 2 | Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Jaybert Esso Service Station, Inc. | green | “the law does not relieve a person merely because he has failed to read a document which he has executed” | 3 |
| 3 | PNC Capital Recovery v. Mechanical Parking Systems, Inc. | green | “under the obligation to exercise ordinary diligence to ascertain the terms of the document he/she signs” | 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.