State ex rel. Pitts v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “ordinarily the question of contract interpretation, being a question of the parties’ intent, is a question of fact” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)
• acknowledging this principle in deciding whether retiree health care benefits were vested under a CBA
• acknowledging this principle in deciding whether retiree health care benefits were vested under a CBA
• considering an appeal from a trial court judgment finding that the Board’s arbitration award interfered with plaintiffs’ vested right to medical benefits
• “[e]xtrinsic evidence is always admissible ... to explain an ambiguity appearing in the instrument” [internal quotation marks omitted]
• “[w]hen only one interpretation of a contract is possible, the court need not look outside the four comers of the contract”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).