United States v. Pentz

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, based on the language of the contract, retirees' rights had vested and that could not be terminated
• holding that, based on the language of the contract, retirees’ rights had vested and that could not be terminated
• determining that a Shutdown Agreement was independent of an insur-anee agreement because it was supported by separate consideration and not executed in close temporal proximity to the insurance agreement
• stating that when \potentially conflicting provisions coexist within the same document... the rule that contractual provisions be read as parts of an integrated whole will lead a court to seek an interpretation that reconciles those provisions\
• finding provision that retired employees would receive benefits \for the lifetime of the pensioner\ constituted \explicit and seemingly unambiguous\ lifetime language
• stating that when “potentially conflicting provisions coexist within the same document ... the rule that contractual provisions be read as parts of an integrated whole will lead a court to seek an interpretation that reconciles those provisions”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).