Standage Ventures, Inc. v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the parol evidence rule “prohibits the use of extrinsic evidence to add to, subtract from, vary or contradict the terms of a complete and unambiguous written agreement” (citing Richards Dev. Co. v. Sligh, 89 Ariz. 100, 101 (1961))
• “[T]he law will not allow a party ‘to have his cake and eat it too.’‘‘
• essential element of judicial estoppel “is that the position first asserted must have been successfully maintained”
• non-mutual collateral estoppel limited to situations involving defensive use of doctrine
• reaffirming mutuality requirement despite trend toward abolishing it
• reaffirming mutuality requirement despite trend toward abolishing it

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).