Thor Seafood Corp. v. SUPPLY MANAGEMENT SERVICES

How courts have described this case

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

• “When a court is required to interpret a contract, the goal should be to discern and enforce the parties’ mutual intent at the time the contract was formed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In Re Calpine Corp.
  S.D. New York· 2008-09-26
• Encore Glass, Inc. v. Anchor Glass Container Corp. (In Re Anchor Glass Container Corp.)
  M.D. Florida· 2006-07-21

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of Catrett
  Supreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 119,442×
• Bank of the West v. Superior Court
  California Supreme Court· 1992-07-30· cited 1,052×
• Badie v. Bank of America
  California Court of Appeal· 1998-11-03· cited 666×
• Winet v. Price
  California Court of Appeal· 1992-03-23· cited 353×
• National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. Argonaut Insurance Company
  Ninth Circuit· 1983-03-08· cited 118×
• Denver D. Darling, Inc. v. Controlled Environments Construction, Inc.
  California Court of Appeal· 2001-06-13· cited 32×
• Herring v. Teradyne, Inc.
  S.D. California· 2002-11-07· cited 11×