Davis v. Aethon Energy Operating LLC is more for lawyers than business people but it is worth noting. A Texas court of appeals affirmed a take-nothing judgment against lessors who sued over the lessee’s failure to provide required information on check stubs. The question asked of the jury did not match the
Yes … sometimes. In ConocoPhillips Company v. Totem Well Service, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas applied New Mexico law to an oilfield indemnity dispute, voiding the Master Service Agreement’s indemnification clause calling for Texas law to govern.
The facts
ConocoPhillips, headquartered in Texas, hired Totem, based
Yes, says Trivista Oil Company LLC v. Fort Apache Energy, Inc., Trivista sued Fort Apache for poaching its mineral lessors and obtaining top-leases in what could have been a more or less typical dispute of that nature. But a Texas court of appeals affirmed dismissal with prejudice of all claims against
North Dakota surface owners defeated the carbon-storage lobby’s effort to steal their interstices.* In Northwest Landowners Association, et al, v. State of North Dakota et al, a district court declared a portion of the CO2 underground storage statute (NDCC 38-22) unconstitutional because it provides for a government-authorized physical invasion of property, which constitutes a
In EOG. v CNH Enterprise Holdings, Ltd. the Court denied a Texas Citizens Participation Act motion to dismiss a plaintiff’s claim.
CNH sued EOG for termination of the Hundley lease covering 3,500 acres in McMullen County. The claim that drew EOG’s TCPA ire was CNH’s cause of action (in the alternative and among several others
Once again, a Texas court has barred a lawsuit because the plaintiff waited too long to file. And once again, perhaps, the suit was a Hail Mary after alternatives failed.
In Hobson v. Commissioners Court of Palo Pinto County, a court of appeals affirmed a judgment against a landowner because his
If you are the type to be preoccupied with the nuances (drudgery if you prefer) of federal statutory and regulatory interpretation, or if you have a fetish for acronyms, I recommend that you read all 41 spellbinding pages of W&T Offshore v. U S Department of the Interior. The rest of us will dig into
“He who comes for the inheritance is often made to pay for the funeral”.* When heirs inherit property together and can’t agree on its use, Texas courts strongly prefer dividing the land physically rather than forcing a sale, even when one owner wants to cash out.
In Cactus Water v. COG Operating, the Supreme Court affirmed that mineral lessee COG, not water rights owner Cactus (who derived it rights from the surface owner), has the right to possession, custody, control, and disposition of constituent water in liquid waste – so-called produced water – from its hydrocarbon production.
In Williams O & G Resources, LLC v. Diamondback Energy, Inc., a federal magistrate judge concluded that the Texas Relinquishment Act does not apply to public-school lands patented after 1931. The report and recommendation was adopted by the district court.
The facts
Williams’ predecessor-in-interest acquired a tract of public land from