RODDENBERRY v. RODDENBERRY

Docket No. B074848.

44 Cal.App.4th 634 (1996)

51 Cal. Rptr.2d 907

EILEEN A. RODDENBERRY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MAJEL RODDENBERRY, as Executor, etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Two.

April 16, 1996.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

COUNSEL

Greenberg, Glusker, Fields, Claman & Machtinger, Michael A. Greene, Brian Edwards, Greines, Martin Stein & Richland, Kent L. Richland and Barbara W. Ravitz for Defendants and Appellants.

Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Elwood Lui, Thomas M. McMahon and Laura A. Matz for Plaintiff and Appellant.


OPINION

ZEBROWSKI, J.

The meaning of a term used in a contract is sometimes so obvious to the contracting parties that neither side sees any need for an express definition. Later, after circumstances have changed and new financial incentives have arisen, one side may wish it had a different agreement. Remanufactured memories and new advice then combine to ascribe an updated and previously uncontemplated meaning to the term. This is...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases