Antonellis v. Northgate Construction Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• The “[paragraph [in question] is not self-interpreting . . . and the evidence could be received and used to elucidate its meaning in context”
• even absent specific evaluation of evidence by trial judge, finding of non-integration upheld as not clearly erroneous
• no integration intended in parties’ one-page agreement and “evident design to mesh” with contingency
• “Whether there was an integration as the plaintiffs contended was a question of the intention of the parties on which proof could be received ranging beyond the writing proper.”
• \Whether there was an integration . . . was a question of the intention of the parties on which proof could be received ranging beyond the writing proper\
• “[the disputed provision] is not self-interpreting ■ — • no form of words is — and the evidence could be received and used to elucidate its meaning in context”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).