Legal Opinion
University Computing Company v. Leader Corporation
District Court, N.D. Texas
Decided January 17, 1974No. Civ. A. CA-3-7397-DPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER
ROBERT M. HILL, District Judge.
In this diversity action, University Computing Company (hereinafter “UCC”) seeks to terminate a master contract and settlement agreement contract 1 with the defendant, The Leader Corporation (hereinafter “Leader”). In the first count of UCC’s complaint it is alleged that the contracts are ambiguous because they grant a license to Leader “for an indefinite period of time.” UCC has filed a motion for summary judgment urging that this court declare the license terminated since as “a matter of law, a license ‘for an indefinite period of time’…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- East Line & Red River Railroad v. ScottTexas Supreme Court · 1888
- Moore v. DilworthTexas Supreme Court · 1944
- Kennedy v. McMullenCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1931
- Foster v. WrightCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1919
- Palmer v. KatzCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1948
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Fluorine On Call Ltd v. Fluorogas LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2004
- Stewart v. MathesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1975
- Trient Partners I Ltd. v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1996
- Trient Partners I Ltd., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corporation, Viacom Inc., Successor by Merger to Blockbuster Entertainment Corporation, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant, and Blockbuster Videos, Inc Blockbuster Entertainment, Inc., Trient Partners I Ltd. v. Blockbuster Entertainment Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1996
- Fluorine on Call, Ltd., Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee-Appellant v. Fluorogas Limited, Fluorogas Limited, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant-Appellee, and the Boc Group, Inc. The Boc Group Plc, Defendants-Appellants-Appellees v. Frederick J. Siegele Stephen Siegele, Third Party Defendants-Counter and Applied Materials Inc., Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2004