Diamond Point Plaza Ltd. Partnership v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that, in a case where some claims are subject to a contractual fee-shifting provision and others are not, it is “not always practicable” to precisely allocate the amount of time spent on one claim as opposed to another
• noting that radius restriction clauses are “in the nature of restraints on trade and competition, which are to be narrowly construed” but are often upheld
• “Liability [for fraud] is not defeated by the fact that Diamond Point’s representations [in a commercial document] were not made directly to Wells Fargo.”
• “A contract is ambiguous if, when read by a reasonably prudent person, it is susceptible of more then one meaning.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).