Petroleos Mexicanos v. Amtrade Intl Inc, 96-20285 (1996)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 96-20285
Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 16, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fifth Circuit _ No. 96-20285 _ PETROLEOS MEXICANOS, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, VERSUS AMTRADE INTERNATIONAL, INC. Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (CA-H-95-1070) _ December 9, 1996 Before WISDOM, DAVIS and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges: PER CURIAM:1 Our review of the record and the briefs in this case leads us to conclude that the district court correctly granted summar
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fifth Circuit _ No. 96-20285 _ PETROLEOS MEXICANOS, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, VERSUS AMTRADE INTERNATIONAL, INC. Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (CA-H-95-1070) _ December 9, 1996 Before WISDOM, DAVIS and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges: PER CURIAM:1 Our review of the record and the briefs in this case leads us to conclude that the district court correctly granted summary..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fifth Circuit _____________________________________ No. 96-20285 _____________________________________ PETROLEOS MEXICANOS, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, VERSUS AMTRADE INTERNATIONAL, INC. Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant. ______________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (CA-H-95-1070) ______________________________________________________ December 9, 1996 Before WISDOM, DAVIS and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges: PER CURIAM:1 Our review of the record and the briefs in this case leads us to conclude that the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Petroleos Mexicanos. Amtrade International failed to demonstrate that the promissory note or the settlement agreement was ambiguous and the district court properly refused to consider parole evidence. AFFIRMED. 1 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. 2
Source: CourtListener
