Brinich v. Jencka

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming denial of JNOV where contractor presented “clear and convincing evidence that the parties orally contracted to modify the specifications of the construction plans”
• “A jury . . . is not permitted to reach its verdict based on mere conjecture or speculation.”
• “‘[A] defendant who publishes a statement which can be considered slander per se is liable for the proven, actual harm the 12 publication causes.”
• despite integration clause in construction contract, parol evidence rule did not bar claim based on an oral agreement for services that fell outside its scope
• “Brinich's use of his uncle's credit information and other alleged unspecified acts of past business misconduct, even if true, are not relevant to [trial issue of] whether Brinich intended to finish construction on the Jencka home.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).