People ex rel. Frost v. Wilson

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that defect and deficiencies in the insured’s work would be excluded by,j(5) and j(6)
• finding there was no “evidence that an excessive number of changes to the scope of work resulted in abandonment”
• finding no contract abandonment, in part, when underlying parties expressly retained rights under contract
• contractor's work not \abandoned\ or \completed\ where it was terminated from the project before completing its work

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).