Duke v. Crawford

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[d]espite the inclusion of the word ‘notwithstanding,’” one section in a contract did not trump another section because the two were “not in conflict”
• holding that “[d]espite the inclusion of the word ‘notwithstanding,’” one section in a contract did not trump another section because the two were “not in conflict”
• “The use of such a ‘notwithstanding’ clause clearly signals the drafter’s intention that the provisions of the ‘notwithstanding’ section override conflicting provisions of any other section.” (quoting Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Gp., 508 U.S. 10, 18 (1993))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).