The phrase "any language to the contrary" is correct and usable in written English.
It is typically used in legal or formal contexts to indicate that the statement being made overrides any conflicting statements or interpretations.
Example: "This agreement shall remain in effect regardless of any language to the contrary found in previous documents."
Alternatives: "notwithstanding any conflicting language" or "regardless of any opposing statements."
Appellees cannot cite any authority that expressly urges retroactivity and because there is no express language to the contrary, retroactivity cannot be applied.
It points to the "basic constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy" in the UK, which "led to the conclusion that a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament unless very clear language to the contrary is used in the referendum legislation in question".
Despite some language to the contrary, the principles had given many people the strong impression that race-consciousness was tantamount to unconstitutionality.
While the bill contains a number of measures that could be seen as requiring companies to weaken their users' security, it contains little language to the contrary.
Without language to the contrary, words like "fraud" and "evasion" create the impression that education is rife with incompetence and conspiracies to hide it.
In particular, despite some language to the contrary, the Court dos not appear to be excluding pre-enforcement as-applied challenges or require that specific applications of a measure be challenged one at a time, requirements that would mark a notable deviation from existing precedent and raise substantial impediments to asserting constitutional rights in federal court.
Despite fig-leaf language to the contrary, Moscow can now stop future NATO moves in the Balkans and elsewhere before the regular membership has reached a consensus.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case, King v Burwell, challenging the illegal IRS rule which, despite statutory language to the contrary, authorizes people to get subsidies in the federal exchanges.
Moreover, in the absence of any language in the Rule to the contrary, courts should adhere to their usual practice of reviewing the district court's findings of fact under a deferential standard.
