Litigation practice tip before we dive into Right-Way Sand Co. v. South Texas Pipelines LLC (STX). Waiting 27 months after being sued and after the offending activity has occurred before asking for an injunction to “protect the status quo” is probably a loser.
STX sued landowners Right-Way and others to exercise the power of eminent
A pipeline company condemning property of a governmental entity? That’s something you don’t see every day. Score a win for “big pipe” against “big government”. In Harris County Fresh Water Supply District No. 61 v. Magellan Pipeline Company, LP and V-Tex Logistics, LLC, a special purpose district unsuccessfully argued that it
The battle lines between pipeline companies and landowners are still being drawn. In Bayou Bridge Pipeline v. 38.00 acres nobody had a gun, nobody got taken away, and one side was right and one side was wrong.
There were two survivors:
Note to non-Louisiana lawyers: Unlike Texas at least, a Louisiana pipeline must obtain a judgment of expropriation before going on the property.
Continue Reading Louisiana Oil Pipeline Expropriation System is Constitutional
Co-author Rusty TuckerIn Hlavinka v. HSC Pipeline P’ship, LLC, a Texas court denied a pipeline company’s claim that it is a common carrier with the power of eminent domain.
The Hlavinkas own 15,000+acres in Brazoria County. HSC owns pipeline systems in Texas. HSC’s manager Enterprise Products applied to the Railroad Commission for a permit to operate a new 44-mile long pipeline for the transportation of products including polymer grade propylene. The parties were unable to agree on terms for an easement across four tracts of land.
HSC filed a condemnation suit. The Hlavinkas challenged HSC’s eminent domain power asserting that the pipeline was not for public use and propylene is not crude oil. As a result, they alleged, HSC is not a common carrier and thus does not have authority to condemn private property. HSC filed a motion for partial summary judgment to establish its right to condemn as a matter of law.
Continue Reading Status as a Common Carrier Denied by a Texas Court
Co-author Rusty TuckerSan Miguel Electric Coop is a Texas nonprofit electric cooperative that owns and operates a power plant that supplies electricity to 38 Texas counties. After a four-week absence, they return to these pages, this time in DCP Sand Hills Pipeline, LLC v. San Miguel Elec. Coop., Inc. Read on to learn about the “paramount importance doctrine”.Continue Reading Lignite Lease Prevails Over Pipeline Easement
We now know what it takes to establish common carrier pipeline status in Texas. According to the Texas Supreme Court in Denbury Green Pipeline Texas LLC v. Texas Rice Land Partners Ltd., all that is required is a reasonable probability that the pipeline will, at some point after construction, serve the public by transporting
Co-Author Martin P. AverillIs Denbury’s Green Pipeline a common carrier? That question is alive and well in Texas. In Texas Rice Land Partners Ltd. v. Denbury Green-Texas Pipeline, LLC, the Beaumont court of appeals reversed a summary judgment granted by the trial court to Denbury, applying the Texas Supreme Court’s “reasonable probability” of
Northern National Gas Company vs. Approximately 9117 Acres in Pratt, Camden and Reno Counties, Kansas shows the relationship between Kansas oil and gas law and the Kansas Underground Storage Act (KSA §55-1201 et seq).
The result: Obtaining authority to condemn a subsurface reservoir works no instantaneous change of ownership in storage gas under Kansas
Suppose I own a large tract of land in the region of the Barnett Shale, the exclusive right to allow (or prevent) drilling on the aforesaid land, and a desparate need for funds. You have $19 million and the desire to exploit the minerals. I take your $19 million, and when you ask for permission
The first step in successfully challenging the Keystone Pipeline: Choose a court that has jurisdiction. Mr. Bishop learned that lesson the hard way in Bishop v. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline.
Mr. Bishop lived in Nacogdoches County, Texas, when TransCanada attempted to negotiate an easement and pipeline right-of-way. Those negotiations failed and TransCanada brought a condemnation proceeding.