Dynegy Midstream Services, Ltd. Partnership v. Apache Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that contracts unambiguously did not impose an obligation on one party to the contract, contrary to the argument of the other contracting party
• holding that courts construing contracts must 13 give terms their plain and ordinary meaning unless contract indicates that parties intended different meaning, and “[a] contract is not ambiguous simply because the parties disagree over its meaning”
• stating that a contract is ambiguous when its meaning is uncertain and doubtful or is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation
• stating that a contract is ambiguous when its meaning is uncertain and doubtful or is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation
• explaining that words should be given their plain and ordinary meaning unless the contract provides otherwise
• stating that a contract is ambiguous when its meaning is uncertain and doubtful or is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).