Pavek v. Curran

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that it was proper to conclude that party was bound by settlement agreement when that party was present at settlement hearing, made no objection to terms of agreement, and did not in any way indicate that she did not understand settlement
• affirming determination that party intended to be bound because she did not object when her attorney confirmed the agreement in open court
• alleging agreement did not provide enough security in the event Pavek defaulted on payments
• noting it was proper to conclude that a party was bound by a settlement agreement when that party was present at the hearing, made no objection to the terms of the agreement, and did not in any way indicate that she did not understand the settlement
• \[W]e hold that the superior court erred in refusing to grant Pavek's motion for entry of judgment when no material issues of fact existed as to the settlement's terms or validity.\
• \When ruling on a motion to enter judgment upon an alleged settlement agreement the superior court has discretion to deny the motion if the court determines that material issues of fact exist as to ... a material term of the settlement.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).