Annual Oil & Gas Case Law Update 2016
|
|
- Evan Shepherd
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Annual Oil & Gas Case Law Update 2016 Christopher S. Kulander Director & Professor, Harry L. Reed Oil & Gas Law Institute, South Texas College of Law Houston Of Counsel, Haynes and Boone, LLP
2 Need Energy-Related Ethics Hours? -We have them!
3
4 30 th Annual Energy Law Institute for Attorneys and Landmen -The Institute s Institute! August 30-31, 2017 (Wednesday & Thursday the week before Labor Day weekend)
5 Topics for Discussion Evidentiary requirements for nuisance/ negligence Fixed vs. Floating Royalty the TxSC weighs in Preemption of local ordinances by state regs Are multi-tract NPRIs appurtenances to individual tracts? Groundwater & the Accommodation Doctrine Clarifying pipeline eminent domain authority And more!
6 Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner Texas Supreme Court, 2016 (No ) Question presented: Was noise from a compressor station an actionable nuisance? What is nuisance in Texas? Background: Crosstex owned and operated a natural-gas pipeline that ran approximately 130 miles from Tarrant to Lamar County. Purchased a 20-acre tract along pipeline path in rural Denton County to use as a storage yard and a compressor station. Gardiners owned an undeveloped 95-acre ranch SW corner of lay directly across a public road from Crosstex s 20-acre tract. Sold Crosstex easement to run the pipeline across the southwest corner of the ranch.
7 Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner Texas Supreme Court, 2016 (No ) Background (cont.) Compressor station led to multiple noise complaints Crosstex held public meeting, then constructed: a partially enclosed pavilion around the engines, installed sound blankets inside the building s walls, installed sound walls on three sides of the building, and planted vegetation around the building and walls. May 2008, Gardiners file suit, initially claiming private nuisance, ordinary negligence, and gross negligence. Amended petition to allege that Crosstex had both intentionally and negligently created a nuisance.
8 Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner Texas Supreme Court, 2016 (No ) Trial court: directed a verdict for Crosstex on the ordinary negligence claim but allowed the jury to consider the nuisance claim The jury failed to find that Crosstex intentionally and unreasonably created a nuisance as to the Gardiners ranch but did find that Crosstex had negligently created a permanent nuisance resulting in a diminution of ranch s fair market value by $2 million. Crosstex appealed
9 Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner Texas Supreme Court, 2016 (No ) Fort Worth Court of Appeals: while the evidence was legally sufficient, it was not factually sufficient to support the jury s finding of a negligently created nuisance. trial court erred by denying Gardiners request for a jury question asking whether Crosstex created a nuisance through behavior that was abnormal and out-of-place. The court reversed and remanded the case for a second trial where the Gardiners could add the abnormal and out-of-place variation of their nuisance claim. Both parties appealed.
10 Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner Texas Supreme Court, 2016 (No ) TX Supreme Court law analysis Nuisance: a legal injury that may support a cause of action, but it is not itself the cause of action or conduct that is necessary to support cause of action. Plaintiff must prove: interference is substantial, and the resulting discomfort, annoyance is unreasonable: Focus on interference s effect on the plaintiff Objective standard Case specific and fact-intensive but need not establish that defendant s conduct or land use was unreasonable.
11 Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner Texas Supreme Court, 2016 (No ) TX Supreme Court law analysis (cont.) Injury is not enough: must be caused by an identifiable legal wrong violation of a legal right caused a breach of a legal duty by respondent Not a showing by claimant that respondent acted or used respondent s real property unlawfully or illegally. Here, the Court lengthily described 3 liability categories: intentional nuisance negligent nuisance (at issue in the case) strict-liability nuisance Three general remedies are available to claimants: damages injunctive relief, and self-help abatement
12 Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner Texas Supreme Court, 2016 (No ) TX Supreme Court case analysis Issues raised by parties on appeal to TxSC: Crosstex: evidence legally insufficient for jury finding Gardiners: wrong standard of review used in finding that the evidence was factually insufficient Evidence of Nuisance: Did Crosstex negligently create a nuisance as to the [Gardiner s property]? ( Nuisance then defined legal injury.) Jury: Yes ; TxSC: Both sides presented evidence and jury found for Gardiners. Evidence legally sufficient! Also: Crosstex s efforts to mitigate suggestive of nuisance? Page 44 of opinion
13 Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner Texas Supreme Court, 2016 (No ) TX Supreme Court case analysis (cont.) Factual evidence of Negligence: TxSC found that the court of appeals had sufficiently considered and weighed the evidence and its conclusions that (1) the decision of the jury was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence presented by Crosstex and (2) that a new trial should be conducted were therefore necessarily sound. Remanded affirmed call for a new trial
14 Hysaw v. Dawkins Texas Supreme Court, 2016 (No ) Question presented: fixed vs. floating non-participating royalty interest ( NPRI ) battle in will from 1947 Background: Ethel Hysaw owned three tracts in Karnes County, Texas a 1,065-acre tract, a 200-acre tract, and a 150-acre tract. Her will divided a fee-simple interest in the 1,415 acres of property among her three children as follows: to Inez Hysaw Foote, 600 acres; to Dorothy Francis Hysaw Burris, 465 acres; and to Howard Caldwell Hysaw, Jr., 350 acres. Regarding the related mineral estates, the testatrix changed her allocation methodology, encumbering each tract thusly:
15 Hysaw v. Dawkins Texas Supreme Court, 2016 (No ) I will and bequeath to each of the above named children fee simple title to the lands designated to go to them, subject, however, to the following: That each of my children shall have and hold an undivided one-third (1/3) of an undivided one-eighth (1/8) of all oil, gas or other minerals in or under or that may be produced from any of said lands, the same being a nonparticipating royalty interest... [emphasis by Court]
16 Hysaw v. Dawkins Texas Supreme Court, 2016 (No ) Next, three identical royalty clauses: [T]hat is to say, that... [the named child] shall not participate in any of the bonus or rentals to keep any lease or leases in force; that it shall not be necessary for the said [named child] to execute any oil, gas or mineral lease over the lands of [the siblings], and that it shall not be necessary for [the named child] to obtain the consent either orally or written of the said [siblings], to lease any portion of said land so willed to [the named child] for oil, gas or other minerals, but that the said [named child] shall receive one-third of one-eighth royalty, provided there is no royalty sold or conveyed by me covering the lands so willed to [the child]... [emphases by Court]
17 Hysaw v. Dawkins Texas Supreme Court, 2016 (No ) In 1946, Ethel granted equal royalty interests to each child in the two tracts comprising the 350 acres received by Howard Hysaw, Jr. Two years later, she granted the surface estate in 200 acres to Howard Hysaw, Jr. After Ethel died in 1949, the rest of her real property passed under her will. The three Hysaw children later died, and their property interests in the captioned land passed to other successors.
18 Hysaw v. Dawkins Texas Supreme Court, 2016 (No ) Much later, a lease with a 1/5 lessor s royalty was executed over the 600-acre tract of Inez Foote, and a conflict ensued concerning the measurement of the NPRIs that burdened the lands. Inez Foote s successors claimed that the 600-acre tract of Inez Foote and the 465-acre tract of Dorothy Burris were each burdened with three NPRIs fixed at 1/24 (each being one-third of a fixed 1/8), and that any royalties in excess of the NPRIs were reserved by the fee owner. The successors of Dorothy Burris and Howard Hysaw, Jr., asserted that tracts were burdened with a floating NPRI of 1/3 of any lessor s royalty obtained (1/3 of 1/5, or 1/15, for each successor under the current lease) and that this interpretation was supported by language in the will providing intent for each sibling to receive an equal share of royalties.
19 Hysaw v. Dawkins Texas Supreme Court, 2016 (No ) Trial court finds floating NPRIs, CoA reverses CoA: Each clause individually was found to comport with prior fixed NPRI language. Tx SC reversed on January 29, 2016 Yes, without other indicators of intent, reasonable to interpret the double fraction as a devise of a fixed 1/3 of 18 to each of Ethyl Hysaw s children, but interpreter must consider entire instrument
20 Hysaw v. Dawkins Texas Supreme Court, 2016 (No ) Reasons TxSC found floating NPRIs: (1) the deliberate recitation of identical language to effect each child s royalty inheritance; (2) the use of double fractions in lieu of single fixed fractions, with one fraction connoting equality among the three children (1/3) and the other raising the specter of estate misconception or use of the then-standard 1/8 royalty as a synonym for the landowner's royalty; (3) the first royalty provision s global application to all the children and the second provision s language restating the royalty devise of each child individually; and (4) the equal-sharing language in the third and final royalty clause
21 BCCA Appeal Group, Inc. v. City of Houston No (Tex., Apr. 29, 2016) Questions presented: Are enforcement & registration provisions in a Houston air quality ordinance preempted by the Texas Clean Air Act? Does incorporation into the ordinance of TCEQ rules violate the nondelegation doctrine of the Texas constitution? Background: In 2007/08, Houston amended its existing air quality ordinance to establish its own regulatory-compliance program and adopted a fee schedule to fund the program. The amendments also incorporated TCEQ regulations by reference and made it unlawful to operate an unregistered regulated facility inside Houston s limits
22 BCCA Appeal Group, Inc. v. City of Houston No (Tex., Apr. 29, 2016) The BCCA Appeal Group ( BCAA operators of integrated chemical manufacturing plants and refineries in the Houston area) sued. Trial Court: preempted; Court of Appeals: reverse Rules are not preempted and do not violate the nondelegation doctrine of Texas Constitution. TxSC: Ground rule: ordinance is unenforceable to the extent that it is inconsistent with state statutes Finds unmistakable intention to preempt by legislature any inconsistent local acts
23 BCCA Appeal Group, Inc. v. City of Houston No (Tex., Apr. 29, 2016) TxSC analysis (cont.) the rules converted a primarily administrative and civil enforcement regime under state law into a primarily criminal enforcement regime moved primary enforcement authority from the agency that can ensure consistent enforcement across the state into the hands of the local officials disrupts sought-after uniformity State law recognized that a city had a right to enact ordinances to control air pollution with two limitations: (1) the ordinance must not be inconsistent with the Act or rules or orders of the TCEQ; and (2) the ordinance must not make unlawful a condition or act approved or authorized under [the Act] or the [TCEQ s] rules or orders.
24 BCCA Appeal Group, Inc. v. City of Houston No (Tex., Apr. 29, 2016) Problem with registration ordinance: Facility allowed by state law could violate ordinance contrary to state law s language Nondelegation: can a city delegate its lawmaking authority to a state agency? Generally, no but narrowly applied in Texas Here, because the state law recognized a city s authority to enact ordinances consistent with it, an ordinance incorporating the agency s rules as they exist and as they may be amended did not violate the nondelegation doctrine of the Texas constitution.
25 Coyote Lake Ranch, LLC v. City of Lubbock No , 2016 Tex. LEXIS 415 (Tex. May 27, 2016) Question presented: Is development of groundwater subject to the accommodation doctrine? Background: In 1953, Lubbock purchased the Coyote Ranch s groundwater to supply the city and vicinity. In the deed, the ranch reserved water for domestic, ranching, oil and gas, and agricultural use. City was provided surface use rights, including the rights necessary or incidental to the taking, production, treating, transmission, and delivery of water. In 2012, city ramped up development. Ranch complains
26 Coyote Lake Ranch, LLC v. City of Lubbock No , 2016 Tex. LEXIS 415 (Tex. May 27, 2016) Trial Court: grants temporary injunction City: no accommodation doctrine applies Court of Appeals: removes injunction TxSC: Instrument silent on implied right to use surface reiterated the key principle of the doctrine: conflicting estates should consider and accommodate one another s rights. Notes similarities of groundwater to minerals
27 Coyote Lake Ranch, LLC v. City of Lubbock No , 2016 Tex. LEXIS 415 (Tex., May 27, 2016) Accommodation Doctrine (1) the groundwater owner s use of the surface prohibits or substantially precludes the surface s existing use; (2) the surface owner does not have a reasonable alternative; and (3) the groundwater has other available, industryaccepted, alternatives, so that the surface owner can continue his existing use.
28 Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas v. Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. No (Tex., Jan. 6, 2017) Concept presented: Clarifying pipeline eminent domain authority Background: Denbury wanted pipeline and claimed common carrier status as required by RRC for eminent domain. Texas Rice sues, arguing that RRC box checking doesn t automatically get one common carrier status TxSC in 2012: Mere assertions of possibility of future public use insufficient for common carrier status
29 Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas v. Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. No (Tex., Jan. 6, 2017) Beaumont Court of Appeals: Denbury required to show a (1) reasonably probable future use that (2) would serve a substantial public interest. TxSC: Denbury qualified as common carrier as a matter of law showed a reasonable probability that, after construction, it would serve the public. serve the public means pipeline must transport gas for one or more customers who will either retain ownership of their gas or sell it to parties other than the carrier
30 Aery v. Hoskins, Inc. No CV (Tex. App. San Antonio, Mar. 30, 2016 pet. granted) Question presented: Is a royalty interest covering three pooled tracts appurtenant only to one tract of conveyed land? Background: In 1957, Rose Quinn conveyed the mineral estate of her Quinn Ranch to her three children: Hazel Hoskins, Sam Quinn, and Frances Ray. Rose partitioned and conveyed the surface estate to the children in Subsequently, the three children executed a Sibling Agreement containing various provisions, including: a pooling agreement with regards to royalties, and a cross-conveyance provision. One of the siblings, Sam Quinn, eventually conveyed the majority of his interests through two separate deeds: The first deed involved a conveyance to his sister, Hazel Hoskins. The second deed involved a conveyance to James House.
31 Aery v. Hoskins, Inc. No CV (Tex. App. San Antonio, Mar. 30, 2016 pet. granted) Deed 1: On February 8, 1966, Sam Quinn conveyed his tract of acres to James House, together with all and singular rights and appurtenances thereto in anywise belonging. Did not mention any reservation of rights or any pooled, shared, or undivided royalty interest in other tracts of the Quinn Ranch. Deed 2: On February 11, 1966, Sam Quinn executed a deed to his sister, Hazel Hoskins, and brother in law, L.R. Hoskins. The deed conveyed all of Sam s right, title, and interest in and to the tracts belonging to Hazel Hoskins and Frances Ray. Trouble with the deeds question: Did the Sibling Agreement create an undivided royalty interest in each of the three individual tracts of land 3x separate NPRIs? or Did it create an undivided royalty interest in the entirety of the (mighty) Quinn Ranch
32 Aery v. Hoskins, Inc. No CV (Tex. App. San Antonio, Mar. 30, 2016 pet. granted) Essentially, two possible title chains! Court a question of law: Nature of the royalty interest from production on Hazel Hoskins and Frances Ray s tracts of land Question: Were these interests appurtenant or personal to Sam Quinn s, and now House s, tract of land? Noting that Sam s royalty interests from the Hoskins and Ray tracts were not necessary to the use and enjoyment of Sam s tract of land, court concluded that Sam s undivided royalty interest in his tract was separable from his undivided royalty interest held in Frances and Hazel s tracts.
33 Haider v. Jefferson Cty. Appraisal Dist. No CV, 2016 WL (Tex.App. Beaumont Apr. 14, 2016) (memorandum opinion) Question presented: If a leased tract located outside of a taxing unit is brought into a pool that is partially inside the limits of the taxing unit, can the owner be taxed? Background: The owners of a acre tract that lay outside the tax boundary of Beaumont apparently leased all or a portion of the tract to Cimarex Energy Co. Subsequently, acres of the acre tract was pooled into a 425-acre gas unit. The pool lay mostly, but not entirely, within Beaumont s tax boundary. Cimarex brings in production in the gas unit. Appraisal district wants to levy ad valorem taxes.
34 Haider v. Jefferson Cty. Appraisal Dist. No CV, 2016 WL (Tex.App. Beaumont Apr. 14, 2016) (memorandum opinion) Trial court held: royalties were taxable based on the % of the minerals associated with the acre tract represented in the total pooled acreage two of the plaintiffs had forfeited their rights to challenge the ad valorem assessment in 2012 because they had failed to timely pay that year s assessment before the assessment became delinquent.
35 Haider v. Jefferson Cty. Appraisal Dist. No CV, 2016 WL (Tex.App. Beaumont Apr. 14, 2016) (memorandum opinion) Court of Appeals: Found the taxing power to be limited to real property located inside the boundaries of the city. 1 Taxing unit must show that the assessed property lies inside the unit s boundaries. 2 If parcel does not lie in city, it cannot be taxed. 3 While a taxing unit can tax minerals in place, code and case law do not address ability of pooling to bring into the taxing unit a part of the pool that lies outside the taxing unit. 1 TEX. TAX CODE ANN (West 2015). 2 Oake v. Collin Cty., 692 S.W.2d 454, 455 (Tex. 1985). 3 Devon Energy Prod., L.P. v. Hockley Cty. Appraisal Dist., 178 S.W.3d 879, 883 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2005, pet. denied).
36 Haider v. Jefferson Cty. Appraisal Dist. No CV, 2016 WL (Tex.App. Beaumont Apr. 14, 2016) (memorandum opinion) Court of Appeals: Was there a cross-conveyance? Need the leases! Must examine the pooling clauses. 1 But somehow the trial court had issued SJ without looking at the leases, only memorandum of same Reversed. Get the leases. Also: 2 parties could challenge Quasi-estoppel did not apply. Pooling Acquiescence Consider city limits when pooling! Consider pooling clause language! 1 Veal v. Thomason, 159 S.W.2d 472, 476 (Tex. 1942).
37
38 Some other cases in the associated paper not mentioned Apache Deepwater, LLC v. McDaniel Partners, Ltd. 1 Do production payments survive termination of the oil and gas leases from which they were derived? Adams v. Murphy Exploration & Production Co.-USA 2 What comprises an adequate offset well? Samson Lone Star Ltd. P ship v. Hooks 3 Can an imprecise calculation of a well s location can be actionable as a fraudulent misrepresentation? And ten more cases! 1 : Tex., Feb. 26, : Tex App. San Antonio, Jun. 15, : Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.], Mar. 15, 2016
39 Finally A Couple of Sources Journal: Oil & Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal ( ONE-J ), University of Oklahoma Primer: Texas Law of Oil & Gas Joseph Shade Casebook/Hornbook: LOWE, ANDERSON, SMITH, PIERCE & KULANDER, CASES AND MATERIALS ON OIL & GAS LAW (6 th ed. Thomson/West 2012). AND 2015 Forms Manual! Energy News Aggregator: Real Clear Energy:
40 Thank you! Christopher S. Kulander Director & Professor, Harry L. Reed Oil & Gas Law Institute, South Texas College of Law Houston Of Counsel, Haynes and Boone, LLP
Supreme Court of Texas January 29, 2016
Supreme Court of Texas January 29, 2016 Matthews v. Kountze Indep. Sch, Dist. No. 14-0453 Case Summary written by Frances Tubb, Staff Member. JUSTICE DEVINE delivered the opinion of the Court. Kountze
More informationCase Law Update 2013
Case Law Update 2013 Christopher S. Kulander Assistant Professor of Law, Texas Tech Of Counsel, Haynes and Boone, LLP chris.kulander@haynesboone.com Total E & P USA, Inc. v. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Corp.
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS VEE BAR, LTD, FREDDIE JEAN WHEELER f/k/a FREDDIE JEAN MOORE, C.O. PETE WHEELER, JR., and ROBERT A. WHEELER, v. Appellants, BP AMOCO CORPORATION
More informationOil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal
Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal Volume 2 Number 3 2016 SURVEY ON OIL & GAS September 2016 Texas Don Hueske Ashley Howie Tallichet Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/onej
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed April 2, 2019. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-18-00413-CV ARI-ARMATUREN USA, LP, AND ARI MANAGEMENT, INC., Appellants V. CSI INTERNATIONAL,
More informationEMINENT DOMAIN TRENDS IN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT. Presented to the Eminent Domain Conference Sponsored by CLE International. Mike Stafford Kate David
EMINENT DOMAIN TRENDS IN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT Presented to the Eminent Domain Conference Sponsored by CLE International Mike Stafford Kate David Eminent Domain Trends in the Texas Supreme Court By Mike
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed February 8, 2019. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-01387-CV JOHN TELFER AND TELFER PROPERTIES, L.L.C., Appellants V. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, Appellee
More informationCommon Carrier Condemnation after Denbury. Martin P. Averill Member, Gray, Reed & McGraw P.C.
Common Carrier Condemnation after Denbury Martin P. Averill Member, Gray, Reed & McGraw P.C. CO2 pipeline under TNRC 111.002(6) Landowner and its tenant farmer refused access for easement survey Denbury
More informationTEXAS OIL & GAS CASE LAW UPDATE TADC Fall 2012 Edition
TEXAS OIL & GAS CASE LAW UPDATE TADC Edition Greg W. Curry Gregory D. Binns Reed C. Randel Thompson & Knight LLP October 12, 2012 I. SCOPE OF THE ARTICLE This article surveys selected oil and gas cases
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-199 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
Verde Minerals, LLC v. Koerner et al Doc. 96 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED March 29, 2019
More informationWhat is a Common Carrier in Texas?
What is a Common Carrier in Texas? This webcast will begin promptly at 12:00 PM Eastern FOLLOW STEPTOE & JOHNSON ON TWITTER: @Steptoe_Johnson ALSO FIND US ON: http://www.linkedin.com/companies/216795 2018
More informationDALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION ENERGY LAW SECTION
DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION ENERGY LAW SECTION December 17, 2016 Texas Nuisance Law After Crosstex v. Gardiner Charles W. Sartain Sonya Reddy Gray Reed & McGraw, P.C. 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600 Dallas, Texas
More informationFourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-14-00666-CV IN RE Dean DAVENPORT, Dillon Water Resources, Ltd., 5D Drilling and Pump Service, Inc. f/k/a Davenport Drilling & Pump Service,
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed March 5, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01212-CV KHYBER HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellant V. HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-11-00169-CV Betty Lou Bradshaw From the 355th District Court v. R.J. Sikes, Roger Sikes, Kathy Sikes, Greg Louvier, Pam Louvier, Christy Rome,
More informationNO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL C JULY 8, 2008 S & J INVESTMENTS, APPELLANT
NO. 07-07-0357-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL C JULY 8, 2008 S & J INVESTMENTS, APPELLANT V. AMERICAN STAR ENERGY AND MINERALS CORPORATION, APPELLEE TH FROM
More informationTEXAS OIL & GAS LAW RECENT DECISIONS. TADC Fall 2013 Edition. Greg W. Curry Gregory D. Binns Jane Cherry. Thompson & Knight LLP
TADC Fall 2013 Edition Greg W. Curry Gregory D. Binns Jane Cherry Thompson & Knight LLP October 18, 2013 I. SCOPE OF THE ARTICLE This article surveys selected oil and gas cases decided by Texas state and
More informationIn The. Court of Appeals. Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont NO CV. CHRISTUS ST. ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, Appellant
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont NO. 09-12-00490-CV CHRISTUS ST. ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, Appellant V. DOROTHY GUILLORY, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Jefferson
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued July 12, 2013 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-13-00204-CV IN RE MOODY NATIONAL KIRBY HOUSTON S, LLC, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
More informationCANONS REDUX Bruce M. Kramer
EIGHTH ENERGY LAW SYMPOSIUM: THE FUTURE OF ENERGY CANONS REDUX Bruce M. Kramer Of Counsel March 23-24, 2017 SELF-PROMOTION Bruce M. Kramer, The Sisyphean Task of Interpreting Mineral Deeds and Leases:
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
Conditionally granted and Opinion Filed April 6, 2017 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-00791-CV IN RE STEVEN SPIRITAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE SPIRITAS SF
More information2013 Oil & Gas Case Law Update. January 28, 2014
HOUSTON BAR ASSOCIATION OIL, GAS & MINERAL LAW SECTION 2013 Oil & Gas Case Law Update January 28, 2014 Christopher Kulander, Assistant Professor of Law, Texas Tech School of Law Of Counsel, Haynes and
More informationThe Eyes of Texas are upon a Subsurface Trespass Case
January 13, 2014 Practice Group: Oil and Gas Environmental, Land and Natural Resources Energy, Infrastructure and Resources The Eyes of Texas are upon a Subsurface Trespass Case By John F. Sullivan, Anthony
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS KNOX COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as Bilbaran Farm, Inc. v. Bakerwell, Inc., 2013-Ohio-2487.] COURT OF APPEALS KNOX COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT BILBARAN FARM, INC. : JUDGES: : : Hon. John W. Wise, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellant
More informationAFFIRM in Part, REVERSE in Part, and REMAND; Opinion Filed November 6, In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
AFFIRM in Part, REVERSE in Part, and REMAND; Opinion Filed November 6, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00032-CV PEDRO DIAZ DBA G&O DIAZ TRUCKING, Appellant V.
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-15-00006-CV WILLIAM FRANKLIN AND JUDITH FRANKLIN, APPELLANTS V. ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 170th
More informationFARMERS FIGHT: TEXAS EMINENT DOMAIN AND THE 2015 TEXAS RICE II CASE
FARMERS FIGHT: TEXAS EMINENT DOMAIN AND THE 2015 TEXAS RICE II CASE Synopsis: Since the oil shale boom and the 2016 political races, the use of eminent domain by private entities has garnered a significant
More informationEXPLORING SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ISSUES IN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS
Presented: Dallas Bar Association March 11, 2019 Dallas, Texas EXPLORING SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ISSUES IN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS Arthur J. Anderson Author contact information: Arthur J. Anderson Winstead
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued May 25, 2017 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-15-00897-CV BENNY VANCE AND PIERRE METZENER, Appellants V. MARK C. POPKOWSKI, JODY M. POPKOWSKI, TAMMY EVANS,
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-13-00050-CV IN RE: TITUS COUNTY, TEXAS Original Mandamus Proceeding Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Opinion by
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-02-00659-CV Sutton Building, Ltd., Appellant v. Travis County Water District 10, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL
More informationCourt of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont NO. 09-10-00394-CV BOBIE KENNETH TOWNSEND, Appellant V. MONTGOMERY CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Appellee On Appeal from the 359th District Court
More informationSTATE OF TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW
STATE OF TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Greg C. Wilkins Christopher A. McKinney Orgain Bell & Tucker, LLP 470 Orleans Street P.O. Box 1751 Beaumont, TX 77704 Tel: (409) 838 6412 Email: gcw@obt.com
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed February 11, 2019. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-00356-CV BROOKS-PHS HEIRS, LLC, BROOKS-PSC HEIRS, LLC; BROOKS-WTC HEIRS, LLC;
More informationNUMBER CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
NUMBER 13-16-00318-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG BBVA COMPASS A/K/A COMPASS BANK, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF TEXAS STATE BANK, Appellant, v. ADOLFO VELA AND LETICIA
More informationCase 3:13-cv K Document 111 Filed 08/19/15 Page 1 of 18 PageID 2821
Case 3:13-cv-01082-K Document 111 Filed 08/19/15 Page 1 of 18 PageID 2821 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION TRINITY VALLEY SCHOOL, et al. v. Plaintiffs,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS No. 16-0804 GARY DON PERRYMAN, NANCY K. PERRYMAN AND LEASHA PERRYMAN BOWDEN; AND EOG RESOURCES INC., PETITIONERS, v. SPARTAN TEXAS SIX CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD., SPARTAN TEXAS
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. DFW ADVISORS LTD. CO., Appellant V. JACQUELINE ERVIN, Appellee
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed February 11, 2016. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00883-CV DFW ADVISORS LTD. CO., Appellant V. JACQUELINE ERVIN, Appellee On Appeal from
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 17-1060 444444444444 IN RE HOUSTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATOR 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
More informationOil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal
Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal Volume 2 Number 3 2016 SURVEY ON OIL & GAS September 2016 Arkansas Kelli D. Smith Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/onej
More informationNO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS
NO. 12-07-00091-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS RAY C. HILL AND BOBBIE L. HILL, APPEAL FROM THE 241ST APPELLANTS V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT JO ELLEN JARVIS, NEWELL
More informationCourt of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont NO. 09-13-00570-CV IN THE ESTATE OF ADRIAN NEUMAN On Appeal from the County Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 105449 MEMORANDUM OPINION
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 05-0870 444444444444 T. MICHAEL QUIGLEY, PETITIONER, v. ROBERT BENNETT, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
More informationFourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00606-CV KING RANCH, INC., Appellant v. Roel GARZA, Cynthia Garza, JS Trophy Ranch, LLC and Los Cuentos, Roel GARZA, Cynthia Garza,
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Appeal Dismissed, Petition for Writ of Mandamus Conditionally Granted, and Memorandum Opinion filed June 3, 2014. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-14-00235-CV ALI CHOUDHRI, Appellant V. LATIF
More informationOil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal
Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal Volume 4 Number 3 The 2018 Survey on Oil & Gas September 2018 Oklahoma Matt Schlensker Justin Fisher Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/onej
More informationLessons Learned for Experts and Advocates
Lessons Learned for Experts and Advocates FEWA Dallas Chapter Dinner January 22, 2015 James E. Smith 713.226.6608 jsmith@porterhedges.com HUI V. MEL ACRES RANCH Brief Factual Background Ranch alleged releases
More informationNo CV. On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC A
Reverse and Render and Opinion Filed July 11, 2013 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-10-01349-CV HARRIS, N.A., Appellant V. EUGENIO OBREGON, Appellee On Appeal from the
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-06-00241-CV Greater New Braunfels Home Builders Association, David Pfeuffer, Oakwood Estates Development Co., and Larry Koehler, Appellants v. City
More informationChapter 8 - Common Law
Common Law Environmental Liability What Is Common Law? A set of principles, customs and rules Of conduct Recognized, affirmed and enforced By the courts Through judicial decisions. 11/27/2001 ARE 309-Common
More informationDECISION Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, and Defendants Motion to Strike
Rock of Ages Corp. v. Bernier, No. 68-2-14 Wncv (Teachout, J., April 22, 2015) [The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-06-00197-CV City of Garden Ridge, Texas, Appellant v. Curtis Ray, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. C-2004-1131A,
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-12-00167-CV STEVEN L. DRYZER, APPELLANT V. CHARLES BUNDREN AND KAREN BUNDREN, APPELLEES On Appeal from the 393rd District Court Denton
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-08-00135-CV DANNY D. LILE, Appellant V. DON SMITH AND WIFE, SHIRLEY SMITH, Appellees On Appeal from the 62nd Judicial District
More informationFPL FARMING, LTD. V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSING SYSTEMS, L.C.: SUBSURFACE TRESPASS IN TEXAS
FPL FARMING, LTD. V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSING SYSTEMS, L.C.: SUBSURFACE TRESPASS IN TEXAS I. INTRODUCTION... 1 II. BACKGROUND... 2 A. Injection Wells... 2 B. Subsurface Trespass in Texas... 3 C. The FPL
More informationContractual Clauses That Impact Disputes. By David F. Johnson
Contractual Clauses That Impact Disputes By David F. Johnson Introduction In the process of drafting contracts, parties can shape the process for resolving their future disputes. They can potentially select
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS No. 17-0198 WASSON INTERESTS, LTD., PETITIONER, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, TEXAS, RESPONDENT ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TWELFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-13-00060-CV Homer Alvarado and Valania Alvarado, Appellants v. The Abijah Group, Inc., d/b/a and f/k/a Baker Surveying and Engineering, Inc., Appellee
More informationNO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL A MAY 29, 2009 IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF
NO. 07-08-0292-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL A MAY 29, 2009 IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF CYNTHIA RUDNICK HUGHES AND RODNEY FANE HUGHES FROM THE 16TH
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 5, 2004 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 5, 2004 Session CUMULUS BROADCASTING, INC. ET AL. v. JAY W. SHIM ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 01-3248-III Ellen
More informationNO CV. IN RE MARK CECIL PROVINE, Relator. Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus * * * NO.
Opinion issued December 10, 2009 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-09-00769-CV IN RE MARK CECIL PROVINE, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus * * *
More informationA Look at Common Causes of Action by a Lessee or Operator in Texas. M. Ryan Kirby
A Look at Common Causes of Action by a Lessee or Operator in Texas M. Ryan Kirby Mineral and Royalty Receiverships Actions to protect both operator and unknown owners of mineral and royalty interests in
More informationCourse Schedule: Mon., Wed., Fri., at am to am
OIL & GAS LAW LAW 721/SEC. 1 FALL 2017 PROFESSOR EMEKA DURUIGBO Course Schedule: Mon., Wed., Fri., at 11.00 am to 11.50 am Oil & Gas Law Page 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS The Professor... 3 Course Books & Material...
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, Appellant
Reverse and Remand; Opinion Filed April 9, 2013. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-00653-CV BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, Appellant V. TCI LUNA VENTURES, LLC AND
More informationMEMORANDUM OPINION. No CV. KILLAM RANCH PROPERTIES, LTD., Appellant. WEBB COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-08-00105-CV KILLAM RANCH PROPERTIES, LTD., Appellant v. WEBB COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellee From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2006-CVQ-001710-D3
More informationTexas Fiduciary Litigation Update. David F. Johnson
Texas Fiduciary Litigation Update David F. Johnson DISCLAIMERS These materials should not be considered as, or as a substitute for, legal advice, and they are not intended to nor do they create an attorney-client
More informationF I L E D February 1, 2012
Case: 10-20599 Document: 00511744203 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D February 1, 2012 No.
More informationNO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS
NO. 12-10-00250-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS LAMAR ELDER, JR., FERRIA JEAN APPEAL FROM THE ELDER, LACETTA R. ELDER, PAMELA ELDER, BARBARA F. COX, NATHAN JONES
More informationWHETHER UCC ARTICLE 4 IN TEXAS PREEMPTS COMMON LAW FRAUD AND BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A BANK AND ITS CUSTOMER
WHETHER UCC ARTICLE 4 IN TEXAS PREEMPTS COMMON LAW FRAUD AND BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A BANK AND ITS CUSTOMER By Brendan J. Fleming* Am. Dream Team, Inc. v. Citizens State
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Appellant s Motion for Rehearing Overruled; Opinion of August 13, 2015 Withdrawn; Reversed and Rendered and Substitute Memorandum Opinion filed November 10, 2015. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO.
More informationIn the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth No. 02-18-00072-CV AMERICAN HOMEOWNER PRESERVATION, LLC AND JORGE NEWBERY, Appellants V. BRIAN J. PIRKLE, Appellee On Appeal from
More informationMEMORANDUM OPINION. No CV. SUNDANCE AT STONE OAK ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-11-00083-CV SUNDANCE AT STONE OAK ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant v. NORTHEAST INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT and Pape-Dawson Engineers, LLC, Appellees From the 225th Judicial District
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued October 18, 2018 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-17-00476-CV BRIAN A. WILLIAMS, Appellant V. DEVINAH FINN, Appellee On Appeal from the 257th District Court
More information{*148} OPINION. FRANCHINI, Justice.
TEAM BANK V. MERIDIAN OIL INC., 1994-NMSC-083, 118 N.M. 147, 879 P.2d 779 (S. Ct. 1994) TEAM BANK, a corporation, as Trustee for the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MERIDIAN OIL INC.,
More informationEleventh Court of Appeals
Opinion filed August 29, 2014 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals No. 11-12-00265-CV STEPHEN C. COLE AND ROBERT STRACK, Appellants V. MICHAEL MCWILLIE, WANDA JUANITA PHILLIPS, AND DELVONNE BURKE, Appellees
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed April 22, 2013. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-11-01540-CV CADILLAC BAR WEST END REAL ESTATE AND L. K. WALES, Appellants V. LANDRY S RESTAURANTS,
More informationIn The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO CV. JAMES M. GILBERT A/K/A MATT GILBERT, Appellant
Opinion issued September 24, 2009 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-06-00159-CV JAMES M. GILBERT A/K/A MATT GILBERT, Appellant V. HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, CITY
More informationCOMES NOW the State of Texas, by and through the Texas General Land Office, by and
CAUSE NO. 11/5/2014 7:51:19 AM Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza District Clerk D-1 -GN-14-004628 Travis County D-1-GN-14-004628 JERRY PATTERSON, COMMISSIONER, TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE, TN THE^^^ DISTRICT COURT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 09-0715 444444444444 MABON LIMITED, PETITIONER, v. AFRI-CARIB ENTERPRISES, INC., RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-16-00062-CV IN THE ESTATE OF NOBLE RAY PRICE, DECEASED On Appeal from the County Court Titus County, Texas Trial Court No.
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-11-00015-CV LARRY SANDERS, Appellant V. DAVID WOOD, D/B/A WOOD ENGINEERING COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 6, 2000 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 6, 2000 Session WILLIAM B. SHEARRON, ET AL. v. THE TUCKER CORPORATION, ET AL. An Appeal from the Chancery Court for Montgomery County No. 89-62-323
More informationOil, Gas and Mineral Law
SMU Law Review Manuscript 1885 Oil, Gas and Mineral Law Richard F. Brown Follow this and additional works at: http://scholar.smu.edu/smulr This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
Reverse and Render and Opinion Filed August 20, 2013 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-11-00970-CV CTMI, LLC, MARK BOOZER AND JERROD RAYMOND, Appellants V. RAY FISCHER
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued August 2, 2018 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-17-00198-CV TRUYEN LUONG, Appellant V. ROBERT A. MCALLISTER, JR. AND ROBERT A. MCALLISTER JR AND ASSOCIATES,
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-01-00478-CV City of San Angelo, Appellant v. Terrell Terry Smith, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Reversed and Rendered and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed October 15, 2015. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-14-00823-CV TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND TED HOUGHTON, IN HIS OFFICIAL
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas OPINION
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed April 2, 2013. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-11-01039-CV ANDREA SHERMAN, Appellant V. HEALTHSOUTH SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, INC. D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
Grant and Opinion Filed February 21, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01646-CV IN RE GREYHOUND LINES, INC., FIRST GROUP AMERICA, AND MARC D. HARRIS, Relator On
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS THE W.L. PICKENS GRANDCHILDREN S JOINT VENTURE, v. Appellant, DOH OIL COMPANY, DAVID HILL, AND ORVEL HILL, Appellees. No. 08-06-00314-CV Appeal
More informationDEFENDANT S 1st AMENDED MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE files this his Defendant s
WWWWWWWWW FILED: 12/4/201712:00 12:00 AM SHERRI ADELSTEIN Denton County District Clerk By: Velia Duong, Deputy JESSICA VIDRINE Plaintiff, v. DR. RYAN DANIEL Defendant. CAUSE NO.: 17-8460-431 IN THE DISTRICT
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-07-207-CV LASHUN RICHARDSON APPELLANT V. FOSTER & SEAR, L.L.P., ATTORNEYS AT LAW AND SCOTT W. WERT ------------ APPELLEES FROM THE 342ND DISTRICT
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued May 2, 2017 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-16-00814-CV TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Appellant V. J.A.M., Appellee On Appeal from the 149th District
More informationCase 3:17-cv VC Document 207 Filed 03/16/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 3:17-cv-04934-VC Document 207 Filed 03/16/18 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, Plaintiff, Case No. 17-cv-04929-VC v. CHEVRON CORP., et al.,
More informationFourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. Ralph D. KNOWLTON, Appellant v. Brenda L. KNOWLTON, Appellee From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No.
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant V. D.R. HORTON TEXAS, LTD.
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed July 10, 2015. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-01414-CV CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant V. D.R. HORTON TEXAS, LTD., Appellee On Appeal from the 116th
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-13-00409-CV BARBARA LOUISE MORTON D/B/A TIMARRON COLLEGE PREP APPELLANT V. TIMARRON OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. APPELLEE ---------- FROM THE 96TH
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued December 6, 2012 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-11-00877-CV THE CITY OF HOUSTON, Appellant V. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, AS SUBROGEE, Appellee
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed October 31, 2018. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-01269-CV CHARLES WESLEY JEANES AND SIERRA INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, Appellants V. DALLAS COUNTY,
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed April 11, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-00040-CV COLLECTIVE ASSET PARTNERS LLC, Appellant V. MICHAEL KEN SCHAUMBURG AND SCHAUMBURG
More information