John A. Russell Corp. v. Bohlig

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that testimony by a former employer about an employee’s termination for dishonesty was inadmissible under Rule 608(b)
• noting that, if a court determines that a contract is unambiguous, “it must declare the interpretation as a matter of law”
• explaining that Rule 60(b) provides relief in “extraordinary circumstances” and is not intended to allow court to reconsider matters disputed and resolved at trial
• explaining that purpose of Rule 60(b) is not to reconsider matters already concluded but only for extraordinary circumstances
• finding contract unambiguous after rejecting construction of paragraph which would conflict with other paragraph and stating “[v]iewing the contract as a whole and construing the provisions in harmony, this is the only reasonable construction”
• question of whether contract is ambiguous presents question of law, as does interpretation of unambiguous contract

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).