Skip to main content
· 4/15/1993

Cathay Bank v. Lee

Citations

  • 14 Cal. App. 4th 1533
  • 18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 420
  • 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2868
  • 93 Daily Journal DAR 4871
  • 1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 407

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing that “the usual rule [is] that ambiguities are construed against the drafter”
  • “The language in Indusco seems very general indeed, so we can easily understand why it failed to pass muster.”
  • “The language in Indusco seems very general indeed, so we can easily understand why it failed to pass muster.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Sills

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.