Holcim (US), Inc. v. AMDG, INC.

How courts have described this case

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

• “Because questions of fact remain as to the parties’ intent, the trial court erred in granting AMDG’s motion for summary judgment.”
• “[W]here an ambiguity exists in the written terms, parol evidence may be used in ascertaining that intent.”
• \[T]he cardinal rule of contract construction is to ascertain the intent of the parties.\ (quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).