Coakley & Williams Construction, Incorporated v. Structural Concrete Equipment, Incorporated

How courts have described this case

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

• evidence of settlement is not precluded by Rule 408 where offered to prove a party’s intent with respect to the scope of a release
• “[B]ecause [a] release was very broadly phrased, it seems that if the parties intended to allow any future claims against each other, they would have done so specifically.”
• “[B]ecause [a] release was very broadly phrased, it seems that if the parties intended to allow any future claims against each other, they would have done so specifically.”
• “[B]ecause [a] release was very broadly phrased, it seems that if the parties intended to allow any future claims against each other, they would have done so specifically.”
• a settlement offer may be introduced as extrinsic evidence of a party’s intent when the finalized settlement agreement is ambiguous and when one party argues that the filing of the suit was itself a breach of the underlying settlement agreement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).