BD. OF TRUSTEES OF FL. ATL. UNIV. v. Bowman

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that language in the general release requiring plaintiff to release defendant from all claims which had accrued, or could have accrued, as of the date of the proposal for settlement, was consistent with a general release and was clear and unambiguous
• finding the language “[a]ny and all claims which were raised or could have been raised in this action by any party against any other party,” to be unambiguous
• distinguishing Zalis, because the terms of the release did not apply to future causes of action that might arise, but only to claims by plaintiffs as of the date of execution of the settlement proposal
• “It was the release of future claims . . . that this court found to be invalid.”
• “In the instant case, the language in the General Release, even though expansive, is typical of other general releases and is clear and unambiguous.”
• “The inclusion of agents, employees, etc. is simply standard language in a general release that should be considered unambiguous and should not invalidate the proposal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).