Cauley v. Bean

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that contract language is ambiguous only where \an agreement's terms are inconsistent on their face or where the phraseology can support reasonable difference of opinion as to the meaning of the words employed and the obligations undertaken\
• stating that contract language is ambiguous only where “an agreement’s terms are inconsistent on their face or where the phraseology can support reasonable difference of opinion as to the meaning of the words employed and the obligations undertaken”
• where trial evidence on meaning of arguably ambiguous contract language was insufficient to support interpretation chosen by jury, judgment n.o.v. should have been granted
• \[T]he court must construe all words that are plain and free from ambiguity according to their usual and ordinary sense.\
• “In interpreting a contract, the court must construe all words that are plain and free from ambiguity according to their usual and ordinary sense”
• language ambiguous if facially inconsistent or capable of supporting reasonable difference of opinion as to meaning of words employed and obligations undertaken

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).