Bringing Family Law Expertise to SCOTX | Justice Debra Lehrmann | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Potential Changes to SCOTX Petition Practice | Justice Evan Young | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
An Unexpected Path to the Appellate Bench | Justice Rebeca Huddle | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Texas Supreme Court Draws Line on Attorney Immunity Privilege
Handling the Texas Supreme Court’s Public Information | Osler McCarthy | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Paths to Texas Judicial Selection Reform | Chief Justice Tom Phillips | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
In case you somehow forgot, the 2021 Valentines Day storm coined “Snovid,” “Snowmageddon,” or officially labeled Winter Storm Uri, blanketed Texas in snow and ice, even bringing snowfall to Galveston Beach. As temperatures...more
Does the Texas Supreme Court’s Decision in Cactus Water Services v. COG Operating Provide Guidance About Lithium and Rare Earth Minerals Ownership in Pennsylvania? Lithium demand is expected to continue to increase as...more
On June 27, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court issued a pivotal decision in Cactus Water Services, LLC v. COG Operating, LLC, holding that under the language of the granting clause found in the standard oil and gas lease, produced...more
On May 16, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court issued a decision ruling that, absent specific contractual language, surface owners retain ownership of the caverns created by salt mining operations. The issue of ownership of salt...more
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
The so called “Anadarko Washout” involves a washout of oil and gas leases on undivided working interests owned by non-operating mineral cotenants. This particular species of lease washouts is based on two recent cases from...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 Myers-Woodward, LLC v. Underground Services Markham, LLC, No. 22-0878, 2025 WL 4356581 (Tex. May 16, 2025), the Texas Supreme Court resolved two significant issues affecting mineral owners and surface owners: (1) who owns...more
In this recent case, the Texas Supreme Court resolved whether ratification of a lease or signing of a stipulation agreement could transform a fixed non-participating royalty interest (NPRI) into a floating NPRI....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
Many oil and gas leases across Pennsylvania allow the driller to divert and use volumes of raw gas to power and fuel production operations both on and off the leasehold. Is a driller obligated to pay a royalty on that volume...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
In Devon Energy Production Company, LP et al v. Sheppard et al, the Supreme Court of Texas construed what it referred to as a “bespoke” and “highly unique” royalty clause in several oil and gas leases to prohibit the...more
Today we will skip our usual routine of explaining how court rulings on the question of the day might affect your interests. Instead we will discuss the fallout from abysmal document drafting. In Rosetta Resources Operating...more
The Supreme Court of Texas has once again tackled the heavily contested issue of postproduction costs in royalty calculations. In Nettye Engler Energy, LP, v. BlueStone Natural Resources II, LLC, No. 20-0639, the Court was...more
In Chalker Energy Partners III LLC v. LeNorman Operating LLC, the Texas Supreme Court reaffirmed its belief in the sanctity of the written contract and the freedom of parties to negotiate and agree to contracts as they...more
It is no surprise to Texas Supreme Court watchers that in Energy Transfer Partners et al v. Enterprise Products Partners LP et al. the court rejected claims that the parties had created a partnership by actions that varied...more
On Friday, January 31, 2020, the Supreme Court of Texas clarified the law of partnership formation in the closely watched case of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. et al. v. Enterprise Products Partners, L.P. et al. The case...more
On January 31, 2020, the Texas Supreme Court (the “Court”) affirmed the 2017 judgment of the Dallas Court of Appeals that Texas law upholds the rights of contracting parties to agree not to be partners unless certain...more
Business contracts are often compared to marriages, and for good reason. Both imply a deep level of mutual commitment to the relationship. But at what point in the relationship do businesses say “I do,” and at what point may...more
In resolving disputes among the mineral interest family, there is no bright-line rule delineating the duty of the executive right holder. In Texas Outfitters Limited v. Nicholson, the Texas Supreme Court explained why. The...more
As promised, here is a more in-depth analysis of the recent Supreme Court of Texas opinion in TRO-X LP v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. ...more
In Murphy Exploration & Production Co. — USA v. Adams the Texas Supreme Court held that an offset well clause in an oil and gas lease did not require the lessee to drill wells calculated to protect against drainage. Four...more