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.
8 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 57 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 Eagle Industries, Inc. v. DeVilbiss Health Care, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Eagle Industries, Inc. v. DeVilbiss Health Care, Inc. Anchor | green | “if a contract is unambiguous, extrinsic evidence may not be used to interpret the intent of the parties, to vary the terms of the contract or to create an ambiguity.” | 30 |
| 2 | Haft v. Haft | green | “objective acts (words, acts and context)” | 7 |
| 3 | Kronenberg v. Katz | green | “language that, when read together, can be said to add up to a clear anti-reliance clause by which the plaintiff has contractually promised that it did not rely upon statements outside the contract's four corners in deciding to sign the contract.” | 5 |
| 4 | Kronenberg v. Katz | green | “contractual freedom and efficiency concerns” | 3 |
| 5 | JPMorgan Chase Bank Ex Rel. Mahonia Ltd. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance | green | “a clear indication that the disclaiming party has knowingly disclaimed reliance on the specific representations that form the basis of the fraud claim.” | 3 |
| 6 | JPMorgan Chase Bank Ex Rel. Mahonia Ltd. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance | green | “a general sweeping disclaimer can serve to disclaim any and all extrinsic fraud between sophisticated parties.” | 3 |
| 7 | Galantino v. Baffone | green | “if a contract is unambiguous, extrinsic evidence may not be used to interpret the intent of the parties, to vary the terms of the contract or to create an ambiguity.” | 3 |
| 8 | Danann Realty Corp. v. Harris | green | “in essence, progressive is saying to the court, 'believe us now when we tell you we made a false promise to dupont then.” | 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.