Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 497: Listen and Learn -- Incidental, Reliance, and Restitution Damages (Contracts)
Ways Organizations Can Pursue Legal Collections
OK at Work: Navigating Customer Terms and Usage
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 295: Listen and Learn -- Incidental, Reliance, and Restitution Damages (Contracts)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 274: Listen and Learn -- UCC Expectation Damages (Contracts)
Viaje al Pasado Legal: Una Reclamación en Piedra
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 213: Listen and Learn -- Material Breach vs. Minor Breach (Contracts)
Law Brief®: Rich Schoenstein and Robert Heim Discuss Musk v. Twitter
4 Key Takeaways | The Future of Construction, Infrastructure and Energy Disputes in the Endemic Age
It’s Lit? Insight into the Increase in Cannabis-Related Litigation in California
Is There Liability for Terminating Contracts Related to Russia?
Basics of a Healthcare Contract: When Do You Actually Have One and What Happens if It's Breached?
Beyond Regulations: Hospice Business Contracts and Contract Disputes
Podcast - The Briefing from the IP Law Blog: Say NFT Again – I Dare You: Miramax Sues Quentin Tarantino Over Plans to Sell “Pulp Fiction” NFT
The Briefing from the IP Law Blog: Say NFT Again – I Dare You: Miramax Sues Quentin Tarantino Over Plans to Sell “Pulp Fiction” NFT
Monthly Minute | Global Supply Chain Issues
Protect Your Construction Project: Top 10 Insurance Provisions to Know
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 119: Listen and Learn -- Anticipatory Repudiation (Contracts)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 95: Listen and Learn -- Promissory Estoppel
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 93: Listen and Learn -- Constructive Eviction
In American Midstream (Alabama Intrastate), LLC v. Rainbow Energy Marketing Corporation, the Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court improperly inserted the words “scheduled” and “physical” into a contract. By...more
In this case (Scout Energy Mgmt., LLC v. Taylor Properties, No. 23-1014, 2024 WL 5249490 [Tex. Dec. 31, 2024]), the Texas Supreme Court held that vague notations on shut-in royalty check receipts cannot modify an unambiguous...more
This lease royalty case involved a dispute over whether the lessee was permitted to deduct volumes of gas used off the premises to power post-production activities on other gas produced from the same well. Carl v. Hilcorp...more
The Texas Supreme Court (“Court”) recently ruled in favor of Murphy Exploration & Production Company—USA (“Murphy”) in a dispute arising from the location of an offset well on the properties of Shirley Mae Herbst Adams and...more
Recall the Battle of the Bastards: The heroic Lady Sansa and the duplicitous Lord Baelish gallop over the hill to save the foolish Jon Snow from the heinous Ramsey Bolton. In similar fashion, but without the malnourished...more
North Shore Energy v. Harkins interpreted an Option Agreement between landowners and a producer over a 400 acre tract. In football they would say the Texas Supreme Court pancaked the plaintiff. In the law, some would call it...more