Sparks v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that regulatory estoppel did not apply as “Arizona has never adopted the doctrine of regulatory estoppel”
• holding regulatory estoppel did not apply and noting that “Arizona has never 16 adopted the doctrine of regulatory estoppel”
• “The 20 Taylor court emphasized that, where appropriate, a judge should consider parol evidence 21 to define contractual terms because a ‘court’s proper and primary function’ is to enforce 22 the meaning intended by the contracting parties.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).