Benchmark Electronics, Inc. v. J.M. Huber Corp.

355 F.3d 356, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 25852, 2003 WL 22977496
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided December 19, 2003·No. 02-20655·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinions

ORDER ON REHEARING

BY THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion in this case is modified by replacing the following sentence, found at 343 F.3d 719, 731:

“We decline to resolve the ambiguity on appeal and, instead, remand for the parties to present extrinsic evidence supporting their interpretations of the agreement.”

with this:

“Regardless whether the clause is technically ambiguous, there are factual issues surrounding its application. These matters must be explored more fully.”

Further, in Footnote 10, the introductory clause, “In addition to the ambiguous contract language” is struck.

Otherwise, the opinion remains unchanged.

The petition for rehearing is, except to the foregoing extent, DENIED. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED, no member of the court having requested a poll.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Benchmark Electronics, Inc. v. J.M. Huber Corp., 355 F.3d 356, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 25852, 2003 WL 22977496 (5th Cir. 2003).

355 F.3d 356 (Benchmark Electronics, Inc. v. J.M. Huber Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hoffman v. Americahomekey, Inc.
23 F. Supp. 3d 734 (N.D. Texas, 2014)
Douglass v. Beakley
900 F. Supp. 2d 736 (N.D. Texas, 2012)
Abbott v. BP Exploration and Production Inc.
781 F. Supp. 2d 453 (S.D. Texas, 2011)
In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative
388 F. Supp. 2d 780 (S.D. Texas, 2005)