Childs v. Ham

How courts have described this case

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

• acknowledging that an order’s terms are ambiguous if they are “susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation”
• acknowledging that an order’s terms are ambiguous if they are “susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation”
• reciting that appellate courts interpret ambiguous orders—those that are susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation—by looking to surrounding circumstances in order to discern their meaning
• “[U]nder general rules of construction we avoid strictly construing an instrument’s language if it would lead to absurd results.”
• “Only where an order’s terms are ambiguous—that is, susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation—do we look to the surrounding circumstances to discern their meaning.”
• “[U]nder general rules of construction we avoid strictly construing an instrument's language if it would lead to absurd results.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).