Nadherny v. Roseland Property Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a court may consider related provisions to “cast light on the meaning of disputed language”
• explaining that factfinder should construe contract “so long as the proper interpretation is fairly debatable”
• noting “the interpretive ground rule that ambiguous terms are usually to be construed against the drafter”
• “[O]n summary judgment, a judge may determine that the extrinsic evidence which is material is uncontested, and so appropriately enter judgment.”
• “[A] court may look to related provisions of a contract to cast light on the meaning of disputed language.”
• \The unexpressed intention of one party is not binding on the other party to a contract.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).