People v. Casler

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the reference to “subsidiaries” in the release did not make the proposal ambiguous
• finding that, while plaintiffs claimed ambiguity was “grammatically possible, it [was] substantively unreasonable” and was “clarified by reference to the proposal for settlement as a whole”
• finding that, while plaintiff’s claimed ambiguity was “grammatically possible, it [was] substantively unreasonable” and was “clarified by reference to the proposal for settlement as a whole”
• finding that a proposal was unambiguous as to the party being released where it “named only Alamo Financing as the party making the proposal,” and only sought dismissal of claims against Alamo
• acknowledging that “parties should not ‘nit-pick’ the validity of a proposal for settlement based on allegations of ambiguity unless the asserted ambiguity could ‘reasonably affect the offeree's decision’ on whether to accept the proposal for settlement.”
• “The standard of review in determining whether a proposal for settlement is ambiguous is de novo.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).