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.
6 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 59 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 NAMA Holdings, LLC v. World Market Center Venture, LLC.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | NAMA Holdings, LLC v. World Market Center Venture, LLC Anchor | green | “contractual interpretation operates under the assumption that the parties never include superfluous verbiage in their agreement, and that each word should be given meaning and effect by the court.” | 20 |
| 2 | Henry v. State | green | “contractual interpretation operates under the assumption that the parties never include superfluous verbiage in their agreement, and that each word should be given meaning and effect by the court.” | 14 |
| 3 | Robino-Bay Court Plaza, LLC v. West Willow-Bay Court LLC | neutral | “the presumption that the parties are bound by the language of the agreement they negotiated applies with even greater force when the parties are sophisticated entities that have engaged in arms-length negotiations.” | 10 |
| 4 | XL Specialty Insurance v. WMI Liquidating Trust | green | “the underlying purpose of the ripeness principle is to conserve limited judicial resources and to avoid rendering a legally binding decision that could result in premature and possibly unsound lawmaking.” | 7 |
| 5 | Town of Cheswold v. Central Delaware Business Park | green | “a number of important concerns have led courts . . . to decline declaratory judgment jurisdiction in instances in which a controversy is deemed to have not yet matured to a point at which judicial action is appropriate.” | 4 |
| 6 | Stuart v. Stuart | green | “once a breach of a covenant is established, the burden is on the breaching party to show that the breach did not contribute materially” | 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.