Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Smith v. Smith

872 So. 2d 74 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Smith v. Smith

5 Citing cases

  1. Leonard v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

    No. 06-61130 (5th Cir. Sep. 7, 2007)

    1965). Although the parol evidence rule is not a bar to evidence of a subsequent contract modification, see Dixie S. Indus. Coating, Inc. v. Miss. Power Co., 872 So. 2d 769, 772 (Miss.Ct.App. 2004), the rule is activated only upon the discovery of ambiguity in a contract and is thus inapplicable here. Smith v. Smith, 872 So. 2d 74, 78 (Miss.Ct.App. 2004) ("Parol evidence of the intention of the parties may be received to clear up an ambiguity by reason of which, such intention is not definitely expressed." (quoting Byrd v. Rees, 251 Miss. 876, 882, 171 So. 2d 864, 867 (1965))).

  2. Leonard v. Nationwide Mut

    499 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 2007)   Cited 132 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a similar anti-concurrent causation clause rendered the applicable provision effective even when another peril contributes to the damage

    Although the parol evidence rule is not a bar to evidence of a subsequent contract modification, see Dixie S. Indus. Coating, Inc. v. Miss. Power Co., 872 So.2d 769, 772 (Miss.Ct.App. 2004), the rule is activated only upon the discovery of ambiguity in a contract and is thus inapplicable here. Smith v. Smith, 872 So.2d 74, 78 (Miss.Ct.App. 2004) ("Parol evidence of the intention of the parties may be received to clear up an ambiguity by reason of which, such intention is not definitely expressed." (quoting Byrd v. Rees, 251 Miss. 876, 882, 171 So.2d 864, 867 (1965))).

  3. McLane Services v. Alstom Power, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 3:04CV974LS (S.D. Miss. Jun. 5, 2006)

    1969) (stating that "the parol evidence rule does not become applicable unless there is an integration of the agreement, that is, unless the parties have assented to a certain writing as a statement of the agreement between them").See Smith v. Smith, 872 So. 2d 74, 78 (Miss.Ct.App. 2004) ("`Parol evidence of the intention of the parties may be received to clear up an ambiguity by reason of which, such intention is not definitely expressed.'") (quoting Byrd v. Rees, 171 So. 2d 864, 867 (Miss. 1965)).

  4. Latham v. Johnson

    262 So. 3d 569 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 6 times
    Finding that the defendant waived the affirmative defense of pari delicto when he failed to assert it in his answer and actively participated in litigation without asserting the defense within a reasonable time

    "Under the parole evidence rule, where a contract is not ambiguous, the intention of the contracting parties should be taken solely from the wording of the contract." Smith v. Smith , 872 So.2d 74, 78 (¶ 11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). Parole evidence is not admissible to contradict, vary, alter, add to, or detract from the written agreement.

  5. Benchmark Health Care Center v. Cain

    2003 CA 2399 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 20 times
    Finding sufficient evidence to estimate lost profits where the company's accountant calculated an "estimated net income per day" figure and multiplied it by the number of days left in the contract

    Lamb Constr. Co. v. Renova, 573 So.2d 1378, 1383 (Miss. 1990). Our standard of review on questions of law is de novo. Smith v. Smith, 872 So.2d 74, 79 (¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App. 2004). DISCUSSION