Bentley Funding v. Sk & R Group

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the prior court, a bankruptcy court, “placed no reliance on the absence of the [disputed property] as an asset of Bentley’s bankruptcy estate”
• applying the expressio unius principle to conclude that a written contract’s omission of a particular term “shows an intent to exclude it”
• “The trial court ignored the plain language of the [c]ontract by adding provisions not included by the parties. This it cannot do.”
• “[U]nder the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the omission of a particular covenant or term from a contract reduced to writing shows an intent to exclude it.”
• \The insistence upon a court having accepted the party's prior inconsistent position ensures that judicial estoppel is applied in the narrowest of circumstances [where] the necessity of protecting juridical integrity outweighs the ramifications of that protection upon the litigant.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).