Wamsley v. Champlin Refining and Chemicals, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “[t]o have ratification, there must be an antecedent contract that was previously voidable, but not avoided.”
• concluding the district court had retained jurisdiction to 12 enforce the settlement agreement where “the district court made exactly the sort of express 13 provision described by Kokkonen”
• observing that void promises are not contracts and are not ratifiable
• “To have ratification, there must be an antecedent contract that was previously voidable, but not avoided.”
• “Promises that are void cannot be ratified.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).