Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
In parties' dispute over the terms of a stock purchase agreement entered into in 1989 and several modification of the agreement over the next decade involving a small number of shares in two automobile dealerships and whether the contract also gave plaintiff option to purchase remaining shares, summary judgment in plaintiff's favor is reversed as extrinsic evidence is required to clarify what the parties meant because the contract as modified is reasonably susceptible to both parties' interpretation and is therefore ambiguous regarding the survival of the options.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division
Decided November 20, 2009
Opinion by Circuit Judge Sykes