University of Southern Indiana Foundation v. Baker

How courts have described this case

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

• relying on extrinsic evidence such as contemporaneous notes from the contract drafter and affidavits from third parties attesting to the parties’ spoken intent
• upholding summary judgment because there was “no conflicting evidence of [intent]” so therefore “no genuine issue of material fact.”
• Indiana follows “the four 9 corners rule,” so extrinsic evidence not admissible to add to, vary, or explain terms of 10 contract where terms are clear and unambiguous

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).