10 canonical passages across 9 cases, quoted by 65 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 Graham v. Drydock Coal Co..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Graham v. Drydock Coal Co. Anchor | green | “extrinsic evidence is admissible to ascertain the intent of the parties when the contract is unclear or ambiguous, or when circumstances surrounding the agreement give the plain language special meaning.” | 20 |
| 2 | Graham v. Drydock Coal Co. | green | “the intent of the parties is presumed to reside in the language they choose to use in their agreement.” | 13 |
| 3 | Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. v. Francis | green | “good faith' is a compact reference to an implied undertaking not to take opportunistic advantage in a way that could not have been contemplated at the time of drafting, and which therefore was not resolved explicitly by the parties.” | 6 |
| 4 | Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co. v. Cox | green | “the parties to a contract are required to use good faith to fill the gap of a silent contract.” | 5 |
| 5 | Equitable Life Ins. Co. v. Gerwick | green | “to give reasonable effect to every provision in the agreement.” | 4 |
| 6 | City of St. Marys v. Auglaize County Board of Commissioners | green | “where the terms in an existing contract are clear and unambiguous, this court cannot in effect create a new contract by finding an intent not expressed in the clear language employed by the parties.” | 4 |
| 7 | Statler Arms, Inc. v. APCOA, Inc. | green | “the fact that a contract ... is silent on a particular point does not make it ambiguous.” | 4 |
| 8 | United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. St. Elizabeth Medical Center | green | “courts may not use extrinsic evidence to create an ambiguity; rather, the ambiguity must be patent, i.e., apparent on the face of the contract.” | 3 |
| 9 | Karabin v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance | green | “common words appearing in the written instrument are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning unless manifest absurdity results or unless some other meaning is clearly intended from the face or overall contents of the instrument.” | 3 |
| 10 | Lager v. Miller-Gonzalez | green | “ambiguity exists only when a provision at issue is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.” | 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.