From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Volvo Powertrain Corp. v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States
Jun 15, 2015
576 U.S. 1021 (2015)

Summary

noting that contracts should be interpreted so that no provisions are superfluous

Summary of this case from Lannan Found. v. Gingold

Opinion

No. 14–748.

06-15-2015

VOLVO POWERTRAIN CORPORATION, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, et al.


Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.


Summaries of

Volvo Powertrain Corp. v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States
Jun 15, 2015
576 U.S. 1021 (2015)

noting that contracts should be interpreted so that no provisions are superfluous

Summary of this case from Lannan Found. v. Gingold
Case details for

Volvo Powertrain Corp. v. United States

Case Details

Full title:VOLVO POWERTRAIN CORPORATION, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, et al.

Court:Supreme Court of the United States

Date published: Jun 15, 2015

Citations

576 U.S. 1021 (2015)
135 S. Ct. 2833
192 L. Ed. 2d 875
83 U.S.L.W. 3900

Citing Cases

Lannan Found. v. Gingold

If the Acknowledgment Condition merely meant that Gingold "recognizes the agreement as valid," the paragraph…