Atomic Fuel Extraction Corp. v. Estate of Slick
403 S.W.2d 784
Opinion
We refuse the application for writ of error with the notation “no reversible error.” 386 S.W.2d 180. However, such action is not to be construed as approval of that part of the Court of Civil Appeals’ opinion which holds that only nominal damages may be recovered for the loss of sales of uranium concentrates.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Atomic Fuel Extraction Corp. v. Estate of Slick, 403 S.W.2d 784 (Tex. 1965).
403 S.W.2d 784 (Atomic Fuel Extraction Corp. v. Estate of Slick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Richard Coe v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.
695 F.3d 311 (Fifth Circuit, 2012)
5636 Alpha Road v. NCNB Texas National Bank
879 F. Supp. 655 (N.D. Texas, 1995)
Orchid Softwear, Inc. v. PRENTICE-HALLL INC.
804 S.W.2d 208 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Orchid Software, Inc. v. Prentice Hall, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991
Automark of Texas v. Discount Trophies
681 S.W.2d 828 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1984)
Ames v. Great Southern Bank
672 S.W.2d 447 (Texas Supreme Court, 1984)
First Texas Savings Ass'n of Dallas v. Dicker Center, Inc.
631 S.W.2d 179 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Dunn v. Growers Seed Ass'n
620 S.W.2d 233 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1981)
Lubbock Manufacturing Co. v. Sames
598 S.W.2d 234 (Texas Supreme Court, 1980)
Braugh v. Phillips
557 S.W.2d 155 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1977)