Dr. Gopal Potti, Kamala Potti, Vinayak Potti, a Minor, and Lakshmi Potti, a Minor, Cross-Appellants v. Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding trial court erred by admitting extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent when “there [was] no ambiguity with respect to the critical language” contained in the disputed “paragraph 8.2”
• explaining that, “[ujnder'Ohio law, [while] interpretation of written contract terms is a matter of law for initial determinátion by the court,” “when the relevant contract language is ambiguous ... the job of interpretation is turned over to the fact finder”
• “[T]he determination whether a contract is ambiguous is made as a matter of law by the court.”
• “[W]hen the relevant contract language is ambiguous ... the job of interpretation is turned over to the fact finder.”
• “Ambiguity exists only when a term cannot be determined from the four corners of the agreement . . . .”
• “[T]he determination whether a contract is ambiguous is made as a matter of law by the court.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).