Atwood v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a court is “not to interpret an agreement in a way that would nullify any of the provisions in the agreement or render them meaningless” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that a court is \not to interpret an agreement in a way that would nullify any of the provisions in the agreement or render them meaningless\ (internal quotation marks omitted)
• stating the “well-settled principle of contract construction: a contract must not be interpreted in a manner that nullifies provisions of that contract”
• explaining in depth why Illinois courts and general contract law doctrine is not sympathetic to the argument that statutes of limitations conflict with contractual limitations provisions
• defining “claim” as “a demand for something due or believed to be due”
• defining \claim\ as \a demand for something due or believed to be due\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).