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 4 cases, quoted by 39 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 Motorsports Racing Plus, Inc. v. Arctic Cat Sales, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Motorsports Racing Plus, Inc. v. Arctic Cat Sales, Inc. Anchor | green | “the primary goal of contract interpretation is to determine and enforce the intent of the parties.” | 17 |
| 2 | Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. Tempworks Mgmt. Servs., Inc. | green | “the terms of a contract are ambiguous if they are susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.” | 6 |
| 3 | Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co. | green | “the determination of whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law, but the interpretation of an ambiguous contract is a question of fact for the jury.” | 5 |
| 4 | Staffing Specifix, Inc. v. Tempworks Mgmt. Servs., Inc. | green | “are susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.” | 5 |
| 5 | Qwinstar Corporation v. Curtis Anthony | green | “attempt to avoid an interpretation of the contract that would render a provision meaningless.” | 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.