United States v. Volvo Powertrain Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that contracts should be interpreted so that no provisions are superfluous
• noting that contracts should be interpreted so that no provisions are superfluous
• finding no error in district court’s application of preponderance standard on petition for judicial review of a consent decree where evidentiary standard made little difference to end result, and the defendant waived it below
• “The district court was not required expressly to address each of those [equitable] factors one by one.”
• first excerpt quoting Segar v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 16, 21 (D.C. Cir. 2007)
• “[Ultimately the question for the lower court, when it interprets a consent decree incorporating a settlement agreement, is what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have thought the language meant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).