State of Texas. V. Reimer et al. studied lawyer-nerdy questions of standing to bring a lawsuit and statutes of limitations as applied to inverse condemnation suits. Spoiler alert: To the chagrin of the landowners, waiting...more
7/22/2025
/ Adverse Possession ,
Eminent Domain ,
Inverse Condemnation ,
Judicial Authority ,
Land Titles ,
Mineral Leases ,
Oil & Gas ,
Property Owners ,
Standing ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Takings Clause ,
Texas
Dow Construction, LLC v. BPX Operating Company resolved a bundle of issues arising out of a drilling unit established by the Louisiana Commissioner of Conservation: who has the right to a drilling cost report, the operator’s...more
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...more
In Franklin v. Regions Bank the Fifth Circuit concluded that a royalty clause in a mineral lease resulted in a gross proceeds royalty; the royalty owners did not bear their proportionate share of post-production costs. Read...more
The takeaway from DDR Weinert, Limited et al v. Ovintiv USA Inc. is that equitable recoupment rescued a royalty payor from its mistaken payment of royalties. But first,
The events.
The Richters were mineral lessors...more
In Cromwell v. Anadarko E & P Onshore LLC the Supreme Court of Texas did what it so often does: In order to provide “legal certainty and predictability”, the Court considered the plain language of a contract in order to...more
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...more
In a word, the surface estate owner. If that’s all the learning you are up for today, proceed directly to the musical interludes. If you want to know why the Supreme Court of Texas had to say this again, read on....more
In In re Pearl Resources LLC, a Houston bankruptcy court rejected the Texas General Land Office’s attempt to partially terminate state oil and gas leases in Pecos County, despite finding the operator had breached offset well...more
Boren Descendants et al v. Fasken Oil and Ranch, LTD, offers something to talk about beyond interpretation of the fixed-or-floating NPRI question. At issue was this reservation, expressed as a double fraction, in a 1933...more
After four stops at the lower courts, Kenneth Hahn v. ConocoPhillips has been resolved by the Supreme Court of Texas. The Court opined on the effect of two instruments often used to clarify land titles in Texas: ...more
2/26/2025
/ Contract Terms ,
Land Titles ,
Mineral Leases ,
Mineral Rights ,
Mining ,
Oil & Gas ,
Property Owners ,
Real Estate Transactions ,
Royalties ,
Texas ,
TX Supreme Court
Who owns produced water in Texas? And what is produced water anyway – oil and gas waste and part of the mineral estate, or groundwater and part of the surface estate? We may be closer to an answer to these questions now...more
For the Osage Indian Tribe, it’s more like “IMBY if you pay me”. In the latest interation of United States and Osage Minerals Council v. Osage Wind LLC et al the US District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma awarded...more
In Mistretta v. Hilcorp Energy Company, unleased mineral owner Mistretta sued Hilcorp alleging failure to provide requested production and well cost information pertaining to an oil well operated by Hilcorp. The well was in a...more
The question in Rock River Minerals, LP and Carr v. v. Pioneer Natural Resources, et al.: Did an assignment of overriding royalty interests in Texas oil and gas leases include a depth limitation? No....more
In re: EP Energy E&P Company, LP considered three lease maintenance provisions in several oil and gas leases. The federal district court ruled that the leases were maintained in force after cessation of production despite...more
Author Paul Yale* In the summer of 2022, the Executive Committee and Board of Directors of the American Association of Professional Landmen approved the first ever Model Form Participation Agreement to be approved by the...more
Remnant LLC v. Permico Royalties LLC, et al determined that a 90-year-old claim to ownership of a forfeited corporation was not valid.
The players -
Hoffman: By most accounts a scoundrel and con man who plied his...more
If you follow the Texas Railroad Commission closely, you should read Ammonite Oil & Gas v. Railroad Commission of Texas, in which the Supreme Court rejected a mineral owner’s effort to force pool an interest under the Mineral...more
Unitex WI LLC v. CT Land and Cattle Company LLC rejected the surface owner’s effort to force the mineral lessee to bury a pipeline below plow depth. Surface owner CT’s claim was based on a mineral lease signed by former owner...more
In Self v. BPX Operating, a case with significant implications for Louisiana operators and royalty owners, the Supreme Court of Louisiana ruled that the doctrine of negotiorum gestio in La. Civil Code art. 2292 does not allow...more
It’s not exactly Deuteronomy 23:19, but the Supreme Court of Texas has an opinion about interest. They don’t like it if it’s compounded. Samson Exploration LLC v. Bordages addressed interest to be charged on unpaid royalties...more
Montgomery Trustee v. ES3 Minerals and Echo Minerals is another Texas fixed or floating royalty case. Before diving into the details, perhaps it’s best to describe the pattern the courts seem to fall into to resolve these...more
In Occidental Permian, Ltd. et al v. Citation 2002 Investment LLC the Supreme Court construed a 1987 assignment from Shell Western E& P Inc. to Citation of a large number of properties. The instrument contained these...more
In Carl v. Hillcorp Energy the Supreme Court of Texas addressed the relationship between the lessee’s use of gas off-premises under a free-use clause and the lessor’s burden to share post-production costs (PPCs) under the...more