perpuitiesWe have a new format. And we’re still gluten free!

Co-author Alexandria Twiss

In BP America v. Laddex, Ltd.  the Texas Supreme Court affirmed that in a lease termination case the trial court cannot limit the jury’s consideration of production in paying quantities to an arbitrary time period. The court also applied the Rule Against Perpetuities.

Production in paying quantities

See this entry for our discussion of the court of appeals’ ruling.

In March 2007 the lessors under the BP lease entered into a top-lease with Laddex covering the same property as the BP lease. Laddex sued, alleging that the BP lease had terminated for failure to produce in paying quantities in 2005 and 2006. A jury found that the BP lease had terminated for failing to produce in paying quantities. BP appealed.

The trial court incorrectly charged the jury on production in paying quantities by limiting the inquiry to a specific 15-month period in which production slowed. The controlling issue was whether the well failed to produce over a reasonable period of time determined by the jury, not a specific period chosen by the court.

The Rule Against Perpetuities

Despite the boredom that may result, you need to know about the Rule. BP argued that the top-lease on which Laddex’s standing depended was void as a perpetuity.

The Rule: “No interest is valid unless it must vest, if at all, within twenty-one years after the death of some life or lives in being at the time of the conveyance.”

The BP bottom-lease was a conveyance of the mineral estate (less portions expressly reserved, such as royalty) as a determinable fee. A it possibility of reverter is the interest left in a grantor after the grant of a fee simple determinable. The possibility of reverter is presently vested at the time the lease is executed.

A top-lease conveyance on expiration of a bottom-lease, without more, generally violates the Rule. However, the court looked to Laddex’s lease. Its primary term commenced on the date that either (1) releases of the BP lease executed by all owners of record are filed in the real property records, or (2) a final judgment terminating the BP lease.

The Laddex lease further stated that is “is intended to and does include and vest in Lessee any and all remainder and reversionary interest and after-acquired title of Lessor in the Leased Premises upon expiration of any prior oil, gas or mineral lease . . . .” The Court concluded that a plausible interpretation of this language was that the Laddex lease is a present “partial alienation” of the lessors’ possibility of reverter under the BP lease, to the extent that what Laddex has acquired “is capable of ripening into a fee simple determinable interest upon expiration of the [BP] lease.” BP’s interpretation was also plausible, but where an instrument is equally open to two constructions, the one will be accepted which renders it valid rather than void.

I denied my heritage by failing to feature a Mardi Gras song on Mardi Gras day. I’ll make up for it with one you’ve heard and one, maybe not.

maneiri-1A phrase currently in common usage begins with “‘cluster” and ends with a vulgarity that has been around for centuries. Saheid v. Kennedy presents facts that pretty much exemplify the meaning of the phrase:

  • While living in England, start out to buy a hotel in New Orleans,
  • have no experience in Louisiana mineral transactions,
  • when the hotel falls through, buy 1096 acres with 500 wells in northernmost Caddo Parish,
  • do zero title due-diligence,
  • memorialize the $4 million transaction with a one-page handwritten document,
  • close the deal three weeks later with an Act of Credit Sale,
  • pay royalties for four years and then dispute the obligation,
  • when disagreement ensues sign another “contract” that doesn’t really help,
  • sum it all up by testifying as to your “confusion” about the transaction.

The one-pager for the 1096 acres provided: “Seller [Gish] to give a best effort to deliver to Buyer [Saheid] the remaining 12 ½% Gish family oil and gas lease holding.” Saheid’s purchase price would be reduced by $400,000 if Gish couldn’t deliver the minerals within five years. Saheid paid royalty to the Gish relatives for almost four years. Saheid and Gish later entered into a “contract” in which they agreed that the Saheid payment would be reduced and Gish would continue to withhold the 12.5% royalty.

What legal points are at play?

Not much about titles, a lot about parol evidence, which is admissible when:

  • the terms of a contract are susceptible to more than one meaning,
  • there is ambiguity as to its provisions, or
  • the intent of the parties cannot be ascertained from the language used.

Four witnesses sorted out the mess. And as one might expect, the testimony was confusing and contradictory. Saheid had never purchased mineral interests before and said he was unaware of the 12.5% being claimed by the family. His title-examiner expert testified that the public records showed there was no written contract for the 12.5% mineral interest. But he agreed that it was Gish’s right to sell 87.5% and keep the rest if the agreement so specified.

The court concluded that Gish did not intend to sell and Saheid did not intend to buy the entire mineral interest. Gish was selling 100% of the tract and 87.5% of the minerals, which is a reasonable concession for accepting a partial payment and owner financing. The court referred to Saheid’s “imperfect understanding” of the transaction.

Takeaways

  • Due diligence = good business, sloppiness and haste = bad business.
  • Lame, one-page agreements are seldom sufficient for anything, much less a $4 million land and mineral trade.
  • Paying royalties for four years and then saying you thought you owned the minerals = not persuasive.
  • Entering into a contract before you understand it = bad business.

If Saheid had stopped in Opelousas instead of turning north to Shreveport, maybe he could have avoided this mess.

Good - Better - Best. On the black bacground
Good – Better – Best. On the black bacground

Co-author Katie English

McCabe Trust v. Ranger Energy LLC, is the consequence of failing to comply with the Texas Property Code when correcting real property conveyances.

The simplified facts

  • In 2008, Mark III executes a mortgage granting a bank a security interest in property described in an attached exhibit which included certain oil and gas leases.
  • In 2011, Mark III assigns overrides in the leases covered by the mortgage, plus two additional leases, the McShane Fee and Brice, to the McCabe Trust and the Rochford Trust.
  • In January 2013, a revised mortgage is recorded, replacing the original exhibit with one including the McShane Fee and Brice leases. It is not executed by the bank or Mark III.
  • The bank transfers the mortgage to Ranger Energy.
  • Ranger forecloses.

Ranger asserted that the Trusts’ overrides in the McShane Fee and Brice leases were extinguished by the foreclosure sale. The trial court granted judgment for Ranger.  The appellate court reversed and remanded.

Why the reversal? Blame the Texas Property Code

A correction instrument that complies with the Property Code is effective as of the date of the original conveyance. The statutory requirements for correction instruments differ based on whether the correction is a material change or nonmaterial correction.

A nonmaterial change

Section 5.028 allows a person with personal knowledge to execute a correction instrument making a nonmaterial change of an inadvertent error, including the addition of an inadverantly omitted legal description.

A material correction

Section 5.029 allows the original parties to the transaction or their successors to execute a correction instrument making a material correction, including “the addition of land to a conveyance that correctly conveys other land.”

The decision

The 2013 revisions added two additional leases to a mortgage which correctly conveyed interests in other leases.  The addition was a material correction. The corrective instruments were not retrospectively valid because they were not signed by the parties who originally executed the instruments. Thus, they were not notice to subsequent buyers of the facts stated therein. Foreclosure of the revised mortgage did not extinguish the Trusts’ overrides in the two leases.

The dissent

The dissent agreed with Ranger that adding the two leases was a nonmaterial change but argued that the Trusts were not bona fide purchasers.  The dissent would say the Trusts’ interests were extinguished.

Takeaways

There are several:

  • Statutory requirements for correcting a real property conveyance differ depending on the circumstances.
  • These provisions date from 2011. If you haven’t dusted off the Code since the Longhorns were successful on the gridiron, be warned.
  • The general rule is that first in time is first in right. There will be times when you will need the correction to relate back.
  • If there is a question whether a change is material or nonmaterial, have all original parties to the original transaction (or their successors) execute the correction.

Recall my desire to criminalize lame cover songs. Immunity should be granted for good ones. For example, we have the very outstanding Curtis Mayfield original, and the almost-as-good Huey Lewis cover.

speed limitToday’s “pay attention” edition begins with a quiz. What is the most important thing to read carefully:

a. Speed limit sign in small-town (insert name of Southern state).

b. Itinerary for that dream vacation, the one with multiple layovers of varying durations in airports and time zones far from your own.

c. Title documents to which you affix your John Hancock.

d. Prep instructions before the colonoscopy.

Scott v. Peters, et al. reminds us of the directive imposed by Oklahoma’s constructive notice doctrine:  Read and understand documents that you sign affecting your land. (Helpful hint: It’s no different in other states).

The events

  • 1997 – Warranty Deed filed with the county clerk, Scott conveys 120 acres to Peters; later says he only conveyed the surface.
  • 2000 – Warranty Deed filed, Scott conveys another 40 acres to Peters; retains no minerals
  • 2001 – Warranty Deed filed, Scott grants the same 120 acres to Russell; no reference to mineral reservation.
  • 2001 – Russell conveys the 120 acres to Wichert; no reference to mineral reservation.
  • 2002 – Peters discovers the Wichert deed; obtains a quitclaim from Wichert; leases the minerals under the entire 160 acres.
  • 2014 – Scott sues Peters to quiet title in the minerals under both tracts.

 The issue 

When did Oklahoma’s five-year statute of limitations for reformation of a deed begin to run? Resolved: When the document was filed of record, even if Scott didn’t understand what it said.

Scott argues: Limitations for reformation of the 1997 deed didn’t begin to accrue when the deed was filed. It did contain a mineral reservation, but the reservation was insufficient. A layman such as himself couldn’t be held to know the legal effect of such an insufficiency until the legal effect was questioned. He relied upon Oklahoma’s equitable 15-year limitation statute.

Peters responds: Constructive notice was imposed upon Scott by the filing of the deed in 1997; thus the suit was untimely.

Scott acknowledged that he was precluded from challenging the 2000 deed, but argued that the statute was tolled until he learned of an issue regarding the insufficiency of the reservation in the 1997 deed.

The court opines – Scott should have read his deed

Scott’s suit was untimely. He had an opportunity and obligation to read the 1997 deed and at least inquire as to what he was signing. He was required to be diligent in investigating the transaction. This, he did not do.

Even if the mineral reservation in the 1997 deed had been unartfully drafted and was insufficient, Scott attempted to convey the exact same property in 2001 with no reservation whatsoever. Thus, at least as of 2001 Scott was on notice as to what the deed expressed. Had he timely sought to reform the deed, his suit might have succeeded.

The statute began to accrue a least with Scott’s 2001 deed to Russell with no reservation. At that time Scott was on notice that he had no minerals.

Quiz answer

Its a trick question. All answers are correct sooner or later. In Mr. Scott’s case, it’s obvious.

A musical interlude for Mr. Scott.

It’s a multiple choice question:

a.  The royalty interest reserved by the lessor.

b. The drillbit, courtesy of fearless, risk-taking entrepreneurs, the backbone of the great American free enterprise system and the sworn enemies of collectivism.

c.  A cache of DNC emails, discovered by Vladimir Putin himself.

d.  The working interest.

e. It doesn’t matter. Trump won. Get over it.

Can’t stand the suspense? It’s “d”. If the override doesn’t spring from the working interest, you don’t have it.

How did this happen?

EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) et al v. Brammer Engineering et al involved a Power of Attorney under which Brammer would manage minerals for the mineral owners. Terms in the POA regarding Brammer’s compensation:

  • “. . . mineral leases executed in the future by Agent . . . will provide for the reservation of an additional free overriding royalty interest on behalf of the lessors.”
  • Brammer’s compensation would be “on . . . leases under the terms of which not less than 1/16th override royalty is reserved, [Brammer] shall be entitled to 1/32nd free overriding royalty”.

WW&M represented other mineral owners. With Brammer’s permission WW&M negotiated a lease with EnCana with a 1/4th royalty. The lease did not include overriding royalty language Brammer believed it was entitled to, so Brammer executed the lease and an assignment of a 1/32nd override in favor of itself out of the lessor’s royalty.

Then, the litigation 

The mineral owners’ point: Brammer didn’t carve the override out of the working interest and thus was not entitled to it.

Brammer’s response: The additional override was a contractual obligation payable to Brammer from the total royalty reserved in the lease.

The court decides

If Brammer obtained any lessor’s royalty greater than 1/8th, was it entitled to an override, or was Brammer required to expressly reserve an additional free override for itself?

Brammer had to expressly reserve an additional royalty interest for the mineral owners in order to trigger its right to the override. To the court, Brammer redefined “royalty” to mean the standard royalty, whatever that standard might be at any given time. This would require the court to look beyond the words of the unambiguous contract. Further, to the court, “additional” means an override in addition to the lessor’s royalty.

Stated another way: Brammer argued it was entitled to a 1/32nd override anytime that it acquired, in favor of the mineral lessors, at least 1/16th more than the “typical” 1/8th. This, it did not do. Brammer did nothing to obtain the 1/4th royalty in WW&M’s bid package. Judgment for the mineral owners.

What is an overriding royalty anyway?

The Mineral Code does not expressly define an override. Citing plenty of authority, the court concluded that the term describes a royalty carved out of the working interest, different from and in addition to the lessor’s royalty.  This is acknowledged in Brammer’s assignment language:  “It is hereby reserved in favor of Brammer . . . from the Lessors’ royalty . . . a free overriding royalty 1/32nd of  . . .  .”

Have a happy holiday.

perpetuityToday we venture into Oklahoma, to be instructed on the Supreme  Court’s treatment of the Rule Against Perpetuities. First, the Rule: No property interest is good unless it must vest, if all, not later than 21 years after some life in being at the creation of the interest.

In American Natural Resources LLC v. Eagle Rock Energy Partners LP, et alEagle Rock’s predecessor (Encore) and ANR entered into a participation agreement with an AMI. Eagle Rock drilled and completed 17 wells without allowing ANR to participate. In response to ANR’s tortious interference and breach of contract suit, Eagle Rock said that the Rule Against Perpetuities prevented enforcement of this option: “In all subsequent wells within the AMI, ANR shall have the right to participate in the prospect area with a . . . 25% working interest . . .”

ANR responded: The Rule doesn’t apply to operating agreements and doesn’t apply to the option because oil and gas production is always of limited duration.

The court’s analysis

The court observed that the Rule applies to property rights but not to contracts, which are personal, and found cases involving JOAs and leases that fell on both sides. The question was, Does this option provision create a property right subject to the Rule?  The court’s answer was yes.

Options in mineral leases do not violate the Rule because leases and JOAs have a built duration not necessarily tied to the cessation of production. But this AMI was a stand-alone document, and the option applies to participation in wells drilled in the future, as well as existing leases. ANR could participate in future wells even if production ceased and then restarted.  The option allowed ANR to participate in future wells if production ceased and then restarted under new leases and new JOAs. as well as existing leases. As such it is subject to the Rule.

An LLC is not a “life in being”

ANR argued that a single member limited liability company with a 30 year duration should be disregarded as an entity.  The court responded: A corporation might be a person, but it is not a “life in being”.  The only measurable “life in being” in the case of a corporation is a term not exceeding 21 years.  A provision with an immeasurable life in being that vests or distributes after 21 years violates the Rule and is void. ANR asked the court to rely on the disregarded entity doctrine used for federal tax purposes. The court said they were not dealing with federal taxes, but with contractual rights.  Thus, an Oklahoma LLC is a legal entity separate from its owners.

Speaking of Oklahoma, Leon Russell RIP.

Lagniappe

For extra credit, learn more about the Dakota Access Pipeline.

burning moneyMEMORANDUM

From: Legal Department

To: Accounts Payable

Re: What we learned from Shell Western E&P, Inc. v. Pel-State Bulk Plant, LLC

________________________________________________________________________

Just received notice of a Texas subcontractor’s mineral lien? DO NOT continue to pay the contractor. He hasn’t paid the subcontractor. Think you owe nothing on the well on which the lien will be filed? Think what you owe the contractor is not related to the lien? Both good questions, but it might not matter.

If your contractor is insolvent you’ll pay twice, and your standing with the boss will take a major hit.

________________________________________________________________________

Under Chapter 56 of the Texas Property Code a property owner receiving a mineral subcontractor’s lien notice may withhold payment to the contractor in the amount claimed until the debt on which the claim is based is resolved.

Pel-State was a subcontractor for frac jobs in 11 Shell wells.  Pel-State sent Shell a notice that the contractor was not paying for the sub’s work and then perfected a mineral lien.

The dispute was whether the lien amount was $3.19 million or $713,000. The mineral property owner is not liable to the subcontractor for more than the amount the owner owes the original contractor when the notice of lien is received.

A lesson on the Master Service Agreement 

The source of Shell’s misery was its Master Service Agreement with the contractor. When Shell received Pel-State’s lien notice Shell owed the contractor $11 million and thereafter continued to make payments to the contractor.  Bad call.

Shell owed nothing to the contractor on what it considered to be the contract under which Pel-State claimed a lien. Shell owed only $713,000 for the wells on which Pel-State performed work.

Under the MSA no specific work or a price was agreed upon. Those were determined by separate work orders for each job.  The court concluded that the multiple work orders under the MSA comprised a single contract. Where several instruments executed contemporaneously or at different times pertain to the same transaction they will be read together although they did not expressly refer to each other.

What about the Property Code?

Under Section 56.006 the operator cannot be liable to a subcontractor for an amount greater than the amount agreed to be paid under the contract for furnishing material or labor.  Because the MSA was one contract, the court rejected Shell’s argument that a lien should only apply on the work orders for the wells upon which Pel-State provided work.

Pel-State was entitled to collect from Shell for all work performed under the Shell/contractor MSA, under which Shell owed $11 million. The court affirmed Pel-State’s $3.19 million recovery.

Section 56.043 – a safe harbor

This provision, if used properly, protects the operator from liability.  But he has to stop paying the contractor once he receives a notice. Under this opinion, any limitation on the amount of the subcontractor’s lien must be determined by the state of the account between the property owner and the operator, not by amounts that might be owed on a particular work order or field ticket.

Musical interlude – more Bob

Can’t get enough of Bob Dylan songs of loss, sadness and unrequited love, especially when he’s not singing?

Tomorrow is a Long Time

Boots of Spanish Leather

Farewell

stratigraphic formation

Co-author Brooke Sizer

How many of your mineral conveyances are described like this:

… all of Sellers’ right, title and interest in and to (a) the oil, gas and other minerals in, to and under the lands … ONLY INSOFAR as such oil, gas and other minerals are located below that depth which is the stratigraphic equivalent of the base of the Cotton Valley formation and the top of the Louark Group defined as correlative to a depth of 10,765′ in the Winchester Samuels 23 # 1 well … and correlative to a depth of 9,298′ in the Tenneco Baker # 1 well …

The dispute

BRP’s predecessor, IP, sold mineral rights in 13,000 acres in DeSoto and Bienville Parishes to Chesapeake with just that description.  When BRP later went to sell more, Chesapeake claimed that the agreement conveyed rights to the Bossier Shale (lying above the Louark Group), as well as the Haynesville. BRP countered that only rights in the Haynesville Shale and lower depths were sold, thus BRP retained all interests above the top of the Louark Group. BRP LLC (Delaware) v. MC Louisiana Minerals LLC, et al. ensued.

The negotiations

The trial court could not ascertain the common intention of the parties in the IP assignment from the words of the assignment itself. So the court considered parol evidence. On one hand, the parties only talked about rights to the Haynesville Shale, and BRP believed that only the Haynesville was below the Cotton Valley formation. On the other, email from Chesapeake referenced its intent to buy all rights below the Cotton Valley.

Big fact:  No geologist was consulted about the description.

A formation is not a monument 

BRP argued that the rules governing surface limitations on servitudes apply to dividing mineral servitudes by depth. In determining the location of a boundary on the land the most important factor is natural monuments.  BRP urged that the “base of the Cotton Valley Formation” and the “top of the Louark Group” are natural monuments. That argument was unsuccessful.

Experts testified that subsurface formations do not have the permanence of natural monuments on the surface: “The location of formations and groups are subject to disagreement among geologists, and the general thought about their location can vary over time…., for this reason, stratigraphic markers, such as the well depths used in this case, are the more commonly used in the oil and gas industry.”

BRP’s problem was that the base of the Cotton Valley and the top of the Louark Group are two different boundaries and are separated by the 500 to 600 foot thick Bossier Shale.

The result

The trial court judgment in favor of Chesapeake was affirmed.

  • The stratigraphic markers represented by well depths were sufficient for designating the minerals conveyed. The depth limitation language was self-defining.
  • IP had been in a position to complete the due diligence necessary to protect its interests.

What does this case mean to you? 

  • If you talk geology, make sure your geologist is on the team.
  • IP’s dealmakers didn’t understand the geology of the formations.
  • Good try BRP, but as successor you were stuck with IP’s description, and their lack of knowledge.

The (almost) perfect musical interlude

Les was overheard last week crooning this mournful tune to his Tiger fanbase. Was it too soon?

Les urges the Tigers to read energyandthelaw.
Les urges the Tigers to read Energy and the Law.

Square Mile Energy LLC v. Pommier considered this language in a Louisiana partition agreement: “N.B: Included in this transfer are any and all mineral rights, when available, to Roxanne and all surface rights.” Did this language include an interest in a mineral servitude inherited by Paul as co-owner with his siblings?

To answer the question, a few facts are in order. Paul and his siblings inherited five tracts of land in Vermilion Parish. Paul and Roxanne acquired Tract 2 during their marriage, with Paul and the siblings reserving all minerals. Upon Paul and Roxanne’s divorce they executed the partition agreement, in which Roxanne was granted Tract 2.

Roxanne’s position

  • She and Paul owned Tract 2 as community property.
  • A fundamental rule of Louisiana law is that a conveyance of land carries with it all the incidents of ownership, including mineral rights, except such rights as may be expressly reserved.
  • The mineral rights were not expressly excepted in the transfer and therefore the agreement unambiguously transferred a portion of Paul’s mineral rights to Roxanne.

The court did not agree

  • “When available” rendered the clause ambiguous. Based on affidavits and the Judgment of Possession by which Paul and the siblings inherited the property, the court concluded that the parties did not intend to transfer ownership of Paul’s interest in the mineral servitude to Roxanne.
  • Paul was co-owner with his siblings and not the owner of the mineral servitude under Tract 2. Therefore, he could not have transferred the minerals.
  • The plain language of the document compelled the conclusion that the parties intended that the mineral rights would transfer to the owner of the surface after 10 years of nonuse.
  • The contract was a “Partition of Community Property”. The stated intent was to liquidate the community which formerly existed between them. Paul’s interest in the mineral rights was his separate property.
  • The agreement required Paul to transfer all of his right, title and interest in the tract. To interpret the document according to Roxanne would render the language in the N.B. clause superfluous.

Eventually, one of these days, at a time further in the future than Roxanne would like, after cessation of current production on the tract, plus 10 years of nonuse, Roxanne will get her ownership of the minerals.

And our musical interlude, appropriate for the season.

gliderLet’s start with a little background: Under the Accommodation Doctrine an oil and gas lessee has an implied right to use the land as reasonably necessary to produce and remove the minerals, but must exercise the right with due regard for the landowner’s rights.

As a result of Coyote Lake Ranch v. City of Lubbock, the doctrine now applies between the landowner and the owner of an interest in the groundwater. You think this decision pertains to ranchers? I report it because as we know from Bernie, you oil people frack the earth, poison our babies, and spend undeserved riches that should go to the government on vast, water-starved ranches in West Texas.

How did we get here?

In 1953, the City bought the Ranch’s groundwater via a deed that had very detailed provisions regarding the City’s rights. The Ranch reserved water for certain specified uses. In 2012, the City announced plans to increase water extraction by drilling as many as 20 test wells and 60 additional wells. The Ranch objected and sued to enjoin the City from implementing its plan.

The Ranch argues … and honors the Lesser Prairie Chicken

  • The City has contractual and common law responsibility to use only that amount of the surface that is reasonably necessary for its operations and to conduct operations with due regard to the rights of the surface owner.
  • Mowing or removing vegetation would cause destructive wind erosion.
  • The City could drill only where the Ranch allows it as long as full access to groundwater is not impaired.
  • Elevated power lines would allow hawks to roost and prey on the Lesser Prairie Chicken, a threatened species. So bury them (the lines, not the chickens).

The City argues

  • The deed gives the City very broad rights to pursue its plan.
  • The City owes no duty to surface owners (as would mineral owners to accommodate surface owners).
  • The City can drill wherever it chooses, even if it could drill in places less damaging to the surface and still access the water.

The deed governs the City’s rights to use the Ranch land.  What is unsaid is whether the City has an “all but absolute” right to use the surface, heedless of avoidable injury, or only what is necessary or incidental to fully access the groundwater.

The Result

The deed alone did not determine the City’s right to use the Ranch.  There are sufficient similarities between mineral and groundwater estates and their conflicts with the surface estate to apply the Accommodation Doctrine.

See pages 10 through 12 for a history of the doctrine in Texas. See page 13 for the elements of a surface owner’s claim under the doctrine.

A concurring opinion pointed to the written agreement allowing the City to drill water wells at any time and location.  Thus, the doctrine should not apply.  It might apply to where and when the City could construct access roads, but not to where it may locate wells.  Access roads could be built only where “necessary or incidental,” which leaves substantial room for disagreement. To that, the concurring justices would apply a reasonableness standard.

This is a Supreme Court opinion, so treat it like it is a big deal.

A musical interlude.

Let’s not forget D- Day

Several years ago I commented about D-Day – which happened 72 years ago yesterday – and my uncle, who was there. It is worth reading again.