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
The Tyler Court of Appeals reversed a $2.5 million judgment against pipeline successors (Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC v. ExxonMobil Pipeline Co., No. 12-23-00276-CV, 2025 WL 356222 [Tex. App.—Tyler Jan. 31,...more
In this case, Texas Crude Energy, LLC (Texas Crude) and Warwick-Athena, LLC (Warwick) (collectively, the non-operators) sued Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co., LP (Burlington or the operator) after Burlington refused to...more
What happens when a court reads your contract literally for one issue but decides what 'makes sense' for another? A geophysicist just found out. In early April 2025, the Amarillo Court of Appeals reversed in part and...more
When can a Texas court rule on New Mexico property disputes? The answer hinges on whether the property interest is 'central' or just 'incidental' to the real fight....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 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
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
This recent case (Rock River Minerals, LP v. Pioneer Nat. Res. USA Inc., No. 08-23-00216-CV, 2024 WL 4528917 [Tex. App.—El Paso Oct. 18, 2024, no pet. h.]) explored whether an assignment of an overriding royalty interest,...more
Thought you’d heard the last of force majuere cases arising from Winter Storm Uri? Think again. In Marathon Oil Company v. Koch Services LLC. the question was how to measure damages suffered by Koch for Marathon’s...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 growling and barking presented by a claim for tortious interference is often far worse than the bite. Consider Segundo Navarro Drilling, Ltd. v. Chilton , which is a good example of that phenomenon in an oil and gas...more
Unitex WI, LLC v. CT Land & Cattle Co., LLC, No. 07-23-00390-CV, 2024 WL 3249338 (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 28, 2024, pet. filed)...more
Winter Storm Uri sent shockwaves through Texas, freezing gas supplies at a time of critical need and plunging the state into widespread power outages. In the aftermath, the courts have been flooded with force majeure claims,...more
MDC Enegy LLC v. Crosby Energy Services Inc. et al. was an indemnity dispute in which the players were many and the facts complicated. But first...more
A division order is a statement executed by all owners of interests in an oil and gas well. The division order’s essential purpose is to “authorize and direct to whom and in what proportion to distribute” proceeds from the...more
In Apache Corp. v. Castex Offshore, Inc., the Texas Fourteenth District Court of Appeal announced that showing an oil-and-gas operator’s “willful misconduct” under an operating agreement’s exculpatory clause does not require...more