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 125 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 Citation Insurance v. Gomez.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Citation Insurance v. Gomez Anchor | green | “only if it is susceptible of more than one meaning and reasonably intelligent persons would differ as to which meaning is the proper one.” | 59 |
| 2 | USM Corp. v. Arthur D. Little Systems, Inc. | green | “the object of the court is to construe the contract as a whole, in a reasonable and practical way, consistent with its language, background and purpose.” | 56 |
| 3 | Plymouth Rubber Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, Inc. | green | “courts cannot . . . , for example, use commercial context to override express provisions of a contract.” | 10 |
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.