Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co. v. City of Milwaukee

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the Second Circuit in Gibbs provided two, independent reasons for its conclusion
• “While neither the presence nor absence of [a hold harmless clause] is conclusive, the presence of such language certainly warrants considerable weight in construing the parties’ intent.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).