Frank M. Rosetto, Individually and as Representatives of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons v. Pabst Brewing Company, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “ ‘during the term of this agreement’ ” was “the formula that we held in [Corrao] eliminated any patent ambiguity”
• noting that “ ‘during the term of this agreement’ ” was “the 48 No. 1-12-3348 formula that we held in [Corrao] eliminated any patent ambiguity”
• noting that a party has “no grounds for complaining” about the denial of a motion to compel filed two months after the completion of discovery where it provides no excuse for its tardiness
• explaining that a “party’s self-serving testimony” cannot establish a latent ambiguity
• distinguishing latent ambiguity from patent ambiguity, which is ambiguity that is clear from the reading of a contract’s language
• upholding the district court’s denial of a motion to compel filed two months after close of discovery and without any excuse for its tardiness

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).