R.C.R., Inc. v. Rainbow Canyon, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming an amended judgment under Rule 60(a) which resolved an ambiguity created by the district court’s unintentional omission
• testimony that “there was only one road” strong evidence that the parties intended the easement to be located on the only access road in existence at the time the easement was granted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).