Comerica Bank v. Cohen

How courts have described this case

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

• holding the unconditional nature of defendant’s guaranty obligation was evident from the reading of the parties’ agreement as a whole
• stating that a guaranty is construed like any other contract
• holding, with regard to a guaranty agreement that included terms similar to those in this case, that “[t]he plain language of the limited guarant[y] forecloses defendant’s arguments” that the plaintiff was required to foreclose on the collateral before collecting on the guaranty
• stating that a guaranty is like any other contract
• plaintiffs can proceed against the collateral and seek to enforce a guaranty at the same time, but only “so long as plaintiff is not awarded double recovery” (quoting Jim-Bob, Inc. v. Mehling, 443 N.W.2d 451, 461 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).