What happens when language in the body of an assignment of oil and gas interests conflicts with descriptions in the exhibits? Can limitations in the exhibit, such as depth references, supersede the operative granting language in the body of an agreement?
Purchase and sale transactions often progress through several stages of instruments, like layers of an onion, before they reach the final definitive purchase agreement, and perhaps even more layers before they reach the final assignment and post-closing items.
Following the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling in Van Dyke v. Navigator Group that courts interpreting “antiquated instruments” that use 1/8 within a double fraction must begin with the rebuttable presumption that 1/8 refers to the entire mineral estate, Texas courts have wrestled with its implications.
The Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in a case that could substantially clarify, or even fundamentally reshape, the characterization and ownership of underground storage rights in Texas.
The Texas Business Courts will potentially impact a wide range of cases, from high-value contract disputes to intricate corporate governance issues.
El Paso Court of Appeals tells lessee that he cannot establish constructive production sufficient to hold a lease without bearing the risk and liabilities of exploration and production.
