Skip to main content
· 8/18/2009

Cambridge Production, Inc. v. Geodyne Nominee Corp.

Citations

  • 292 S.W.3d 725
  • 2009 WL 1813143

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding quasi-estoppel precluded contracting party from exercising its contractual rights
  • holding quasi-estoppel precluded contracting party from exercising its contractual rights
  • mineral interest owners could not repudiate a unit designation after accepting royalties attributable to that unit
  • mineral interest owners could not accept royalties they received only because of unit operations and then contend that the unit designation was invalid

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hancock, Pirtle, Boyd

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.