Curia v. Nelson

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “whether a contract is ambig‐ uous is a question of law”
• quot- ing Coney v. Rockford Life Ins. Co., 67 Ill. App. 2d 395, 399 (3rd Dist. 1966)
• quot- ing Coney v. Rockford Life Ins. Co., 67 Ill. App. 2d 395, 399 (3rd Dist. 1966)
• quot- ing Coney v. Rockford Life Ins. Co., 67 Ill. App. 2d 395, 399 (3rd Dist. 1966)
• Contracts should be interpreted to “ascribe[] meaning to every clause, phrase and word used” and “nothing should be rejected as meaningless, or surplusage.”
• “[A]n original contract remains in force only to the extent that it is not modified by the new agreement.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).