Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 73 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Medlin Construction Group, Ltd. v. Harvey.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Medlin Construction Group, Ltd. v. Harvey Anchor | green | “a reasonable interpretation must assure that no contract provision is made inconsistent, superfluous, or redundant.” | 11 |
| 2 | Lockheed Martin Ir Imaging Systems, Inc. v. Togo D. West, Jr., Secretary of the Army | green | “the words of a contract are deemed to have their ordinary meaning appropriate to the subject matter, unless a special or unusual meaning of a particular term or usage was intended, and was so understood by the parties.” | 11 |
| 3 | Jill K. Massie, as Mother and Next Friend of Autumn Massie v. United States | green | “we give the words of the agreement their ordinary meaning unless the parties mutually intended and agreed to an alternative meaning.” | 10 |
| 4 | Spencer Abraham, Secretary of Energy v. Rockwell International Corporation | green | “under general rules of contract law we are to interpret provisions of a contract so as to make them consistent.” | 10 |
| 5 | Sufi Network Services, Inc. v. United States | green | “terms must be given their plain meaning if the language of the contract is clear and unambiguous.” | 10 |
| 6 | Air-Sea Forwarders, Inc. v. United States | green | “an agreement is not to be read in a way that places its provisions in conflict, when it is reasonable to read the provisions in harmony. . . . the provisions must be read together in order to implement the substance and purpose of the entire agreement.” | 8 |
| 7 | Beard v. United States | green | “if the contract language is unambiguous, then it must be given its plain and ordinary meaning . . . .” | 8 |
| 8 | Spencer Abraham, Secretary of Energy v. Rockwell International Corporation | green | “provisions of a contract so as to make them consistent” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.