Home Valu, Inc. v. Pep Boys Manny, Moe and Jack of Delaware, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a federal court “faced with two opposing and equally plausible interpretations of state law” should generally “choose the narrower interpretation which restricts liability, rather than the more expansive interpretation which creates substantially more liability”
• adopting an interpretation of state law which, between two possible options, “take[s] the approach that is restrictive of liability”
• adopting an interpretation of state law which, between two possible options, “take[s] the approach that is restric- tive of liability”
• adopting an interpretation of state law which, between two possible options, \take[s] the approach that is restrictive of liability\
• barring plaintiffs fraud claim where parties entered into a contract for the sale of real property with an agreed upon closing date and the defendant subsequently backed out of the sale
• “Where … we are faced with two equally plausible interpretations of state law, we generally choose the narrower interpretation which restricts liability, rather than the more expansive interpretation which creates substantially more liability.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).