In Burlington Resources, the Texas Supreme Court held that an oil and gas royalty assignment that required the royalty to be delivered “into the pipeline” permits the payor to deduct post-production costs from the royalty owners’ payment, even if the agreement purports to prohibit such a deduction.
On June 28, 2019, a divided Texas Supreme Court issued its opinion in Barrow-Shaver Resources Company v. Carrizo Oil & Gas, LLC, a decision that will impact what evidence a court can consider in oil and gas contract disputes and possibly how oil and gas agreements are negotiated and drafted.
In his article published in Law360, Don Jackson examined the key issue in Briggs v. Southwestern Energy Prod. Co., currently pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
On January 18, 2017, in Ring Energy v. Trey Resources, Inc.,[1] the El Paso Court of Appeals, in a case of first impression, addressed whether a trial court outside of Travis County...
The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals released its Memorandum Opinion today in ConocoPhillips Company v. Koopman, 13-14-00402-CV. The case involved a deed which reserved a term NPRI for a period of fifteen years, or until December 27, 2011 and for...
On June 1, 2015 the Amarillo Court of Appeals issued an opinion concerning whether a landowner may have a cause of action for nuisance or trespass against a company conducting regulated oil and gas operations in the vicinity.
