Santiago v. City of Cleveland

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 preliminary language in a plea agreement was not a promise, even though it used the word “agree,” because the following numbered paragraphs contained “specific covenants and promises prefaced by ... promissory phrases”
• finding that the preliminary language in a plea agreement was not a promise, even though it used the word “agree,” because the following numbered paragraphs contained “specific covenants and promises prefaced by . . . promissory phrases”
• noting also that to the extent the phrase was ambiguous, \well-settled principles of construction of plea agreements [required resolution of] this ambiguity in [the defendant's] favor\
• applying to a plea agreement the principle of contract law preferring an -11- interpretation that does not leave a portion of the contract superfluous
• noting also that to the extent the phrase was ambiguous, “well-settled principles of construction of plea agreements [required resolution of] this ambiguity in [the defendant’s] favor”
• noting also that to the extent the phrase was ambiguous, “well-settled principles of construction of plea agreements [required resolution of] this ambiguity in [the defendant’s] favor”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).