Regan v. Regan

How courts have described this case

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

• opining that “one basic rule of interpretation requires the court to evaluate the common intention of the parties to a contract”
• explaining that “conduct of the parties after execution of the agreement may be relevant in determining its meaning” (citing inter alia Journeymen Barbers, etc., Local 687 v. Pollino, 22 N.J. 389, 395 (1956)
• interpreting a consent judgment under the rules of contract interpretation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).