BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA
|
|
- Bruce Patterson
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA APPLICANT: CITIZENS ENERGY II, L.LC. RELIEF SOUGHT: FORCED POOLING CAUSE CD NO T/O LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, GRADY COUNTY, OKLAHOMA APPLICANT: CITIZENS ENERGY II, L.LC. RELIEF SOUGHT: FORCED POOLING FILED JUN COURT CLERKS OFFICE - OKC CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA CAUSE CD NO Tb LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, GRADY COUNTY, OKLAHOMA VACATE ORDERS AND TO REOPEN The Motions to Vacate Orders and and to Reopen Causes came on for hearing before Michael L. Decker, Administrative Law Judge, Monday, June 20, 2016, and Monday, June 27, 2016, on the Oil and Gas Conservation Motion Docket in Courtroom C, Jim Thorpe Building, Western Regional Service Office, Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. At the time of the hearing, Gregory L. Mahaffey, attorney, appeared for Gaedeke Holding IV, LTD, and Gaedeke Oil & Gas Operating, L.L.C. (Gaedeke or Movant); Richard A. Grimes, attorney, appeared for Mid-Continent II, LLC, Linn Energy Holdings, LLC and Linn Operating, Inc. (Linn or Protestant); William H. Huffman, attorney, appeared for Citizens Energy II, L.L.C. (Citizens); Robert A. Miller, attorney, appeared for Marathon Oil Company (Marathon); and David E. Pepper, attorney, appeared for EOG Resources.
2 CAUSE CD NO Tb SUMMARY OF THE MOTION PROCEEDINGS 1. On Monday, June 20, 2016, and Monday, June 27, 2016, the Motions to Vacate Orders and to Reopen Causes were presented as protested motions on the Oklahoma City Oil and Gas Conservation Motion Docket. The Motions were filed in CD T/O and CD T/O pursuant to OAC 165: ' At the conclusion of the hearing on June 20, 2016, the Movant's counsel requested the orders pursuant the Motions be made effective as of June 20, The Movant presented Al Swanson, petroleum land manager, who testified the Movant retained him to check title and develop the prospects for the 640 acre spacing units comprised of Sections 13 and 24, 9N-6W, Grady County, Oklahoma. The Forced Pooling Orders and pertain to the Woodford common source of supply in each unit. The Movant is interested in drilling multiunit horizontal Woodford wells in the sections. The two (2) pooling applications were heard together in April and May, 2016 by ALJ David Leavitt as unprotested causes, presented last on May 10, Marathon was dismissed from both applications because of the existence of Joint Operating Agreements (JOAs) pertaining to each section. Each order provides for a change of operator designation after 305 days, shifting the unit operatorship from Linn to Citizens for the balance of the 365 day term of the orders. "165: Within 10 days; motion (a) Within ten (10) days after an order of the Commission is entered, any person may file a motion for rehearing, or a motion to set aside or to modify the order, or for any other form of relief from the order. However, a motion to reopen the record after an order has been entered shall not be considered a proper motion to seek relief from the order. The motion shall specifically state: (1) The parts or provisions of the order sought to be set aside or modified or from which relief is sought. (2) The specific modifications or other relief sought by the motion. (3) The specific grounds relied upon for relief. (b) Such motion shall be set for hearing before the Commission, unless referred. A copy of the motion, including notice of the date set for hearing, shall be served by the movant on each party of record by regular mail, facsimile, electronic mail or in person. If any motion filed pursuant to this Section is placed on the emergency or regular docket for hearing, the movant shall give at least five (5) days written notice to all respondents listed on the affidavit of mailing and all parties of record." 2
3 CAUSE CD NO Tb The Motions were filed on May 31, 2016 and June 11, 2016, for the respective orders, and notice of the Motions was provided to all owners impacted by the orders. The Motions seek to reopen the applications for presentation of evidence not available at the time of hearing, that being facts concerning the May 11, 2016 filing of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy by the Protestants in Federal Bankruptcy Court in Texas. A transcript of the May 10, 2016, hearing before AU Leavitt was reviewed by the witness. It indicated there was no testimony provided to AW Leavitt regarding the Protestant's plan to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy on May 11, The facts surrounding the Protestant's bankruptcy should be considered a change of condition since the dates of Orders and justifying the vacation and modification of the orders. The Movant presented Exhibits A through E in each application, identified as the applications and pooling orders, and exhibits pertaining to the JOAs affecting the units and steps taken by working interest owners under the JOAs (including Marathon and Gaedeke) to achieve removal of the Protestant as operator of the units. Mr. Grimes objected to the exhibits concerning the JOAs and JOA operator removal dispute. Mr. Mahaffey questioned the witness to establish a foundation for the offer of the JOA-related documents by Mr. Swanson. Mr. Swanson had obtained the JOA-related documents from the business records of Marathon, which had provided the materials for his review. Exhibit C in each cause consisted of excerpts from the JOA for the respective units. Exhibits D and E in each cause consisted of correspondence relating to the demand by Marathon and the Movant that the Protestant be removed as unit operator under the terms of the JOAs. Mr. Grimes contended the witness was not qualified to offer opinions about the terms of the JOAs and elections for removal of operator under the JOAs. Mr. Mahaffey countered that the 0CC could inquire into its jurisdiction to weigh the impact of a JOA upon operator designations pursuant to spacing and pooling orders. The AU overruled the objections and accepted the Exhibits C though E. Mr. Grimes 9
4 CAUSE CD NO Tb requested a continuing objection be recorded concerning all the JOArelated exhibits and any questions about the JOAs and JOA-related matters involving unit operator designation. Under further direct examination, Mr. Swanson pointed attention to the language in each JOA (Exhibit C in each cause) found in Paragraph B.1 regarding the effect of bankruptcy upon the operator designation for the impacted units. Mr. Grimes' renewed objections regarding the Paragraph B. 1 language were overruled by the AU. Next, the witness discussed the working interest ownership under each JOA and the changes which had occurred since regarding ownership in the units. With respect to Section 13 ownership, Marathon controls 52% of the working interest, of which it had assigned 30% to the Movant. Concerning the leasehold ownership, Gaedeke owns 15.84%, Marathon owns 36.96%, Linn owns 41.71%, Citizens owns 2.34%, and miscellaneous entities own 3%. With respect to Section 24 ownership, Gaedeke owns 14.95%, Marathon owns 34.89%, Linn owns 32.03%, Citizens owns 6.25%, and 12% is owned by miscellaneous entities. With respect to the working interest calculation for the proposed multiunit horizontal Woodford well planned for Sections 13 and 24, 9N-6W, Grady County, Oklahoma, Gaedeke/Marathon control % compared to Linn's % and 11.79% held by Citizens and other owners. Mr. Swanson was asked to identify the Exhibits D and E offered in each application, which consisted of the correspondence between Marathon, the Movant, and the Protestant concerning election of new operators for Sections 13 and 24 pursuant to the terms of the JOAs. Mr. Grimes' renewed objections to the admission of the exhibits were overruled. Mr. Swanson explained, that consistent with the JOA demands, Marathon and the Movant want to see the designation of the Movant as operator of Sections 13 and 24, 9N-6W, Grady Count, Oklahoma under the pooling orders. Excluding the Protestant's ownership of 41% in 13 and 36% in 24, approximately 90% of the working interest in 13 and 70% of the working interest in 24 support the designation of the Movant as operator in the subject spacing units.
5 CAUSE CD NO Tb CAUSE CD NO T/O 3. Under cross-examination by Mr. Grimes, the witness indicated the Movant entered into an agreement with Marathon to assume working interest ownership in the sections on June 1, Mr. Swanson agreed Marathon is not subject to Orders and , because it was dismissed from both forced pooling applications. The Movant's interest in each section is limited to the interest it obtained from Marathon; therefore, the Movant is not subject to Orders and The Movant had not filed any applications for 0CC relief. At this point, Mr. Grimes questioned the standing of the Movant to pursue the motions in the instant applications. Mr. Mahaffey argued that the Movant has standing to seek an 0CC remedy under OKLA. STAT., tit. 52, Section 87.1 and other provisions in Title 52 as an owner in the Woodford common source supply. Mr. Grimes challenged the assertion of the Movant's standing, because it does not own an interest affected by the forced pooling orders. The Movant could not enter into the forced pooling order proceedings without ownership of an interest affected by Orders and Mr. Swanson stated the Movant should have been named as a respondent to the pooling applications even though Marathon's interest is subject to the JOAs and not the forced pooling orders. Mr. Grimes contended the exhibits admitted into evidence pertain to elections under the JOAs to designate unit operator and have no relevance to Orders and The Motions were filed based on an interest not subject to the forced pooling orders. Mr. Swanson testified the Movant acquired 30% of Marathon's Woodford interest in Sections 13 and 24, 9N-6W, and would control 100% of the Woodford rights in the any new wells drilled in the sections. Mr. Swanson agreed Marathon had not objected to its dismissal from the forced pooling proceedings. Also, the witness was not aware that on May 17, 2016, Marathon had elected to the Protestant to participate under the terms of the JOAs. Thus, Marathon had not objected to designation of the Protestant as operator alter the bankruptcy, when it elected to participate pursuant to the JOAs. Mr. Swanson was not aware the Protestant considers the Marathon assignment the Movant to be a violation of the uniformity of ownership provision in each JOA. 5
6 CAUSE CD NO Tb 4. Under redirect-examination by Mr. Mahaffey, Mr. Swanson stated that both the Protestant and Marathon are subject to the JOAs. The original pooling orders in Sections 13 and 24, 9N-6W, Grady County, Oklahoma, had not covered the Woodford. Recent mineral leases had been taken in the units covering Woodford rights only. The original forced pooling orders for Sections 13 and 24 had issued in and had not covered Woodford rights. The witness disputed the idea that EOG owns any Woodford rights in the units. Western Oil and Gas Co. had acquired rights from any non-pooled Woodford interest owners in the sections, and these interests were assigned to Marathon. The witness contended the Movant should not be required to file its own pooling applications when it could reopen the instant causes and seek unit operations. Mr. Mahaffey offered Exhibit F, identified as the transcript from the May 10, 2016, hearing before ALJ David Leavitt. Exhibit F was accepted. 5. In conclusion, Mr. Mahaffey stated the Movant had complied with the provisions of OAC 165: The Movant requested that the original ALJ be allowed to consider evidence about the changed conditions created by the Protestant's bankruptcy and the demand of working interest owners in Sections 13 and 14, 9N-6W that the Protestant be removed as unit operator pursuant to the JOAs. AU Leavitt was not told about the Protestant's plan to file bankruptcy. The majority of working interest owners in the sections requests a change in unit operator. 6. In response, Mr. Grimes argued the Movant has no standing to bring the Motions. The forced pooling orders establish the relationships of parties that can assert standing to challenge the orders. The Movant is bound by the JOAs; therefore the Marathon/Gaedeke interests are subject to private contracts and are not interests covered by the forced pooling orders. No parties covered by Orders and have moved to vacate them. The evidence the Movant and Marathon seek to submit concerns JOA disputes over which the 0CC has no jurisdiction to consider in a forced pooling proceeding. The operatorship issue is not a matter the 0CC can determine. 7. Mr. Mahaffey stated the standing of the Movant is derived from ownership of a mineral interest in the Woodford common source of
7 CAUSE CD NO Tb supply. The decision of Spaeth v. Corporation Commission 2 supported the Movant's claim to standing to bring its request for relief. The Movant could not bring its own forced pooling application, since there could be only one forced pooling order covering Woodford rights in each of the spacing units. The JOA operator disputes demonstrate that a majority of the working interest owners want a change in operator for the two (2) units. Mr. Mahaffey requested the effective date of the orders vacating Orders and and reopening the causes be established as June 20, Mr. Grimes indicated on June 20, 2016, he would not offer any comment regarding the legality of the request for a June 20, 2016, effective date, if the Motions are recommended, but would reserve argument pending the AL's decision. 8. The AU raised concerns about the impact of the automatic stay provision in the Federal Bankruptcy Code 3 on the instant proceedings. Mr. Mahaffey indicated knowledge of a past unpublished decision of the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals 4 dealing with the application of the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provision in oil and gas conservation matters adjudicated at the 0CC. He requested time to seek out a copy of the document to provide to the Protestant and the AU. The AU continued the hearing to June 27, Later on June 20, 2016, Mr. Mahaffey provided a copy of the OCCA's unpublished decision to the Protestant's counsel and the AU. Additionally, the ALJ provided the parties with copies of the United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in In re Halo Wireless, Inc.-5 The Halo decision concerns the applicability of the regulatory agency proceeding police power exception, provided in the Bankruptcy Code, 6 to OK 65, 597 P.2d U.S.C. 362(a). "TGX Corp. v. Corporation Commission, Ok. Sup. ct. No. 77,880 (unpublished decision, July 28, 1992). Halo Wireless, Inc. u. Alenco Communications, Inc. (In re Halo Wireless, Inc.) 684 F.3d 581 (5 1h Cir., 2012). 611 U.S.C. 362(b)(4). 7
8 CAUSE CD NO Tb adjudications involving public utility companies in several state public service commissions. 9. On June 27, 2016, the parties announced no need for further argument. Mr. Mahaffey filed a legal memorandum regarding the bankruptcy automatic stay issue, to which Mr. Grimes indicated no desire to respond. The AW opened the record to announce the oral recommendation as summarized below. The written summary of the oral recommendation to grant the Motions in part and to deny the Motions in part would be filed on June 27, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS After consideration of the Motions, testimony, exhibits, and arguments of counsel, the AW recommends as follows: 1. The AW recommends that the Motions filed by the Movant, should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Motions should granted to permit the rehearing of the two (2) pooling applications for the limited purpose of informing the initial AW about the Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing made by the Protestant on May 11, The Motions should be granted for consideration of any modification of Orders and to ensure the operator will take proper steps to safeguard the funds of working interest owners that elect to participate and tender drilling costs for the well(s) proposed under the terms of the orders. Also, inquiry should be made regarding the operator's efforts to secure the proper payment of bonus and royalty to owners that elect to not participate in the well(s) proposed under the terms of the orders. The Motions should be denied regarding the request that Orders and be vacated, and regarding any effort to gain the present change of operator pursuant to the orders. The change of operator issue is the subject of JOAs disputes, over which the 0CC has no jurisdiction to adjudicate at the present time. 2. Based upon the evidence and the arguments of the parties presented on June 20, 2016, the AU recommends the finding that the Motions were filed timely within ten (10) days of the issuance of Orders and The Movant should be deemed to have standing the file the Motions pursuant to 0CC Rules of Practice, OAC 165:
9 CAUSE CD NO Tb CAUSE CD NO Tb The testimony shows the Movant is an owner of a mineral interest in the Woodford common source of supply, and thus has standing to file applications and motions requesting relief with the 0CC pursuant to OKLA. STAT., tit. 52, Section Moreover, pursuant to statute, the Movant is a "person affected by a legislative or administrative order. of the 0CC, which "... shall have the right at any time to apply to the Commission to repeal, amend, modify, or supplement the same." 8 3. The effective date of June 20, 2016, for the orders granting rehearing and consideration of modification should be granted as requested by the Movant. Regardless of the request for a June 20, 2016, effective date, the determination is recommended that the 0CC does not lose jurisdiction to over pertinent issues concerning a forced pooling order through the passage of the thirty (30) day appeal time. OKLA. STAT., tit. 52, Section 87.1 and the 0CC Rules of Practice provide for the OCC's continuing jurisdiction to review forced pooling orders concerning several issues, i.e., redetermination of well costs or the extension of time of the primary term of the order. Forced pooling orders remain in effect for the term established in each order, or when extended after proper notice and hearing; therefore, the 0CC maintains continuing jurisdiction to consider amendment or modification of an order pursuant to OKLA. STAT., tit. 52, Section 112, and 0CC Rules of Practice, OAC 165: and 165: It is customary that the order provides the initial payment of bonuses is not required until thirty-five (35) days following the issuance of the order, which is requirement of the instant orders. Thereafter, the operator remains liable for the payment of bonuses beyond the term of the order. Also, in the case of Orders and , the payment of well costs is tied to notice of spud provisions, 9 which perhaps will not become effective until well beyond the appeal time. Such factors are indications that the 0CC retains continuing authority over certain aspects of an operator's performance under a forced pooling order beyond the thirty (30) day appeal period. ' See Spaeth v. Corporation Commission, 1979 OK 65, 597 P.2d 320, at ' OKLA. STAT., tit. 52, Section 112. See Orders and , Paragraphs 6.1 at Page 2 of each order.
10 CAUSE CD NO Tb 4. The Motions should be granted for rehearing of the applications for the limited purpose of informing the initial AU about the Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing made by the Protestant on May 11, The Motions should be granted for consideration of any modification of Orders and to ensure the operator will take proper steps to safeguard the funds of working interest owners that elect to participate and tender drilling costs for the well(s) proposed under the terms of the orders. Also, inquiry should be made regarding operator's efforts to secure the proper payment of bonus and royalty to owners that elect to not participate in the well(s) proposed under the terms of the orders. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has long held that the 0CC is empowered to take steps in a forced pooling proceeding to ensure the financial security of the operator with relation to working interest owners that elect to participate in proposed wells and tender well costs to an operator under the terms of an order.' In the instant applications, the facts regarding the Protestant's bankruptcy should be provided to the initial AU, so consideration can be given to whether the working interest and royalty interest owners are protected pursuant to Orders and The Motions should be denied regarding the request that Orders and be vacated, and regarding any effort to gain the present change of operator pursuant to the orders. The change of operator issue is the subject of JOA disputes, which the 0CC has no jurisdiction to adjudicate at the present time. It is apparent from the transcript of the May 10, 2016, hearing before AUJ Leavitt that Marathon was dismissed from the application because the drilling of the wells in question for Sections 13 and 24, 9N-6W, Grady County, Oklahoma, would be"... under the terms of the JOA that's in place." The facts regarding the Protestant's bankruptcy can be provided without any need to review the JOAs and the status of the dispute regarding the operator of the units under the terms of the JOAs. The JOA disputes regarding election of a replacement operator are private disputes beyond ' Superior Oil Co. v. Corporation Commission, 1952 OK 123, 242 P.2d 454, 206 Okla 213, at 1J See Exhibit F, Transcript of Proceedings, (May 10, 2016) Lines 1 and 2, page
11 CAUSE CD NO T/O CAUSE CD NO T/O the jurisdiction of the OCC.12 Once the JOA operator disputes are resolved, the Movant can file the appropriate 0CC applications to change the operator designation under Orders and , if such actions are necessary. 5. The impact of the automatic stay provided in the Federal Bankruptcy Code 13 should be determined by the 0CC to fall within the regulatory agency proceeding exception of the same provision of the Code. 14 The forced pooling process provided in OKLA. STAT., tit. 52, Section 87.1 is an exercise of the OCC's statutory police power. 15 The determination of "just and reasonable" terms for participation by working interest owners pursuant to a forced pooling order, the designation of unit operator, and the arrangements for ensuring the financial security of the operator to working interest and royalty interest owners under the terms of a forced pooling order, are fully within the public policy test supporting the applicability of the regulatory agency proceeding exception to the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provision. 16 If an order of the appropriate bankruptcy court is needed to finally determine the applicability of the regulatory agency proceeding exception to the instant forced pooling matters, the 0CC should request that the parties to take steps to obtain such an order. 12 See Leede Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Corporation Commission, 1987 OK 117, 747 P.2d 294; Samson Resources Co. v. Corporation Commission, 1988 OK 31, 702 P.2d 19; and Hadson Petroleum Corp. v. Jack Grynberg & Associates, 1988 OK 100, 763 P.2d 87. Dii U.S.C. 362(a). ' d ii U.S.C. 362(b)(4). ' 5Patterson v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 1938 OK 138, 77 P.2d 83, 182 Okla. 155; amd Anderson v. Corporation Commission, 1957 OK 39, 327 P.2d Halo Wireless, Inc. v. Alenco Communications, Inc. (In re Halo Wireless, Inc.), 684 F. 3d 581 (5 th Cir., 2012). The Movant filed a legal memorandum on June 27, 2016, which supported the interpretation that the regulatory agency proceeding exception to the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay should apply to the instant applications and motions. 11
12 CAUSE CD NO Tb CAUSE CD NO T/O RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TI 1SZ7'DAY OF JUW / Michael L. Decker Administrative Law Judge MLD:sm xc: Commissioner Anthony Commissioner Murphy Commissioner Hiett ALJ Patricia MacGuigam ALT Michael Decker Gregory L. Mahaffey Richard A. Grimes Robert A. Miller David E. Pepper William H. Huffman Office of General Counsel James Myles Oil Law Records Court Clerks - 1 Commission Files 12
BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA
4. BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA APPLICANT: CRAWLEY PETROLEUM CORPORATION AND RELIEF SOUGHT: CLARIFY, CONSRUE, MODIFY, AND/OR AMEND ORDER 153656 (MAY 31, 1979) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SECTION
More informationRECOMMENDATION SHEET OF THE OIL & GAS APPELLATE REFEREE TRIUMPH ENERGY PARTNERS, LLC HORIZONTAL DRILLING AND SPACING UNIT
RECOMMENDATION SHEET OF THE OIL & GAS APPELLATE REFEREE APPLICANT: RELIEF SOUGHT: TRIUMPH ENERGY PARTNERS, LLC HORIZONTAL DRILLING AND SPACING UNIT CAUSE CD NO. 201606083-T LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SECTION 33,
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION Co1MissIoN OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA AMERICAN ENERGY - NONOP, LLC
BEFORE THE CORPORATION Co1MissIoN OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA F I L E D JUL 24 2015 COURT CLERKS OFFICE - 0KG CORPORATION COMMISSION APPLICANT: AMERICAN ENERGY - NONOP, OF OKLAHOMA ORDER NO. 623414 201501622
More informationLIGHTHOUSE OIL & GAS, LP INCREASED WELL DENSITY LIGHTHOUSE OIL & GAS, LP HORIZONTAL WELL LOCATION EXCEPTION HORIZONTAL WELL LOCATION EXCEPTION
BEFORE THE Com'oiwrloN CollIMTssI0N OF THE STATE OF OIaduIoMA APPLICANT: LIGHTHOUSE OIL & GAS, LP I RELIEF SOUGHT: INCREASED WELL DENSITY CAUSE CD NO. 201408566 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE IN RESPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR POST-ORDER RELIEF
BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA APPLICANT: EXCO RESOURCES, INC. RELIEF REQUESTED: APPROVAL OF A PLAN FOR REMEDIAL OPERATIONS ON EXCO RESOURCES, INC.'S PREVIOUSLY OWNED NORGE
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA /
More informationFILED REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CAUSE CD NO AUG CAUSE CD NO NORTH, RANGE 17 WEST, DEWEY COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA APPLICANT: ENCINO OPERATING, LLC. RELIEF SOUGHT: POOLING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 17 WEST, DEWEY COUNTY, OKLAHOMA APPLICANT:
More informationBEFORE THE CoRPol ATION CoMMIssIoN OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ROYAL RESOURCES COMPANY, LLC REPORT OF THE OIL AND GAS APPELLATE REFEREE
APPLICANT: F 0 BEFORE THE CoRPol ATION CoMMIssIoN OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ROYAL RESOURCES COMPANY, LLC I L E OCT 092014 COURT CLERK'S OFFICE - OKC CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA RELIEF REQUESTED:
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHoMA CITATION OIL & GAS CORP. VACATE ORDER NO
APPLICANT: F BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHoMA CITATION OIL & GAS CORP. MAR I L E 0 10 2016 COURT CLERK'S OFFICE - OKC CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA RELIEF SOUGHT: LANDS COVERED:
More informationFILED BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA APPLICANT: RELIEF SOUGHT: POOLING R. L. CLAMPITF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA APPLICANT: RELIEF SOUGHT: POOLING R. L. CLAMPITF & ASSOCIATES, INC. Cause CD No. 201402392 LEGAL NE ¼ SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 2 DESCRIPTION: NORTH
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION COURT CLERKS OFFICE - OKC OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA COfPORATION COMMISSION BRG PETROLEUM LLC
FILE I JAN 232013 BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION COURT CLERKS OFFICE - OKC OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA COfPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA APPLICANT: RELIEF REQUESTED BRG PETROLEUM LLC VACATE ORDER NO.
More informationDECISION SHEET OF THE OIL & GAS APPELLATE REFEREEF COBALT ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC COMMERCIAL DISPOSAL WELL (FORM 1015)
DECISION SHEET OF THE OIL & GAS APPELLATE REFEREEF I L E UG 2 02014 D APPLICANT: RELIEF SOUGHT COBALT ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC COMMERCIAL DISPOSAL WELL (FORM 1015) COURT CLERKS OFFICE OKC CORPORATION
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA WAYNE A. LEAMON REVOCABLE TRUST AND JANE GOSS REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST
BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA F ILE JUL j APPLICANT: WAYNE A. LEAMON REVOCABLE TRUST AND JANE GOSS REVOCABLE INTER VIVOS TRUST ~OiA~4 RELIEF SOUGHT: DRILLING AND SPACING UNITS
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY
BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF FILED APR 11 za COURT CLERK'S OFFICE -.-OKC CORPORATION COMMISSION OF WENDLANDT #2-17 WELL SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 20 EAST, HASKELL COUNTY,
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
- BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA APPLICANT: DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P. CAUSE CD NO. RELIEF SOUGHT: ESTABLISH HORIZONTAL DRILLING & SPACING UNIT 201202292 LANDS COVERED:
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA
BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA APPLICANT: TIM BAKER, DIRECTOR OIL AND CAUSE NO. EN 201500061 GAS CONSERVATION DIVISION OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION ITN:14-41382 RESPONDENT: MM & M RESOURCES,
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA BOONE OPERATING, INC. VACATION OF POOLING ORDER NO
BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA APPLICANT: RELEIF SOUGHT: BOONE OPERATING, INC. VACATION OF POOLING ORDER NO. 610906 CAUSE CD NO. 201401865 LAND COVERED: NE/4 SW/4 OF SECTION
More information1 E 2017 BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA APPLICANT: CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC. ) CAUSE CD NO.
BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA APPLICANT: CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC. RELIEF SOUGHT: DRILLING AND SPACING UNITS ) CAUSE CD NO. ) 201602278 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SECTIONS 20 AND
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA RIMROCK RESOURCE OPERATING, LLC HORIZONTAL DRILLING AND SPACING UNIT
BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA APPLICANT: RELIEF SOUGHT RIMROCK RESOURCE OPERATING, LLC HORIZONTAL DRILLING AND SPACING UNIT CAUSE CD NO. 201505423-T LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SECTION
More informationSUGGESTIONS FOR OPERATORS OPTIONAL PROCEDURE FOR SPACING-RELATED APPLICATIONS OCC-OAC 165:
FOR SPACING-RELATED APPLICATIONS COMPILED BY THE STAFF OF THE OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION DIVISION AND THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...3 STEP-BY-STEP
More informationNEWFIELD EXPLORATION MID-CONTINENT INC. REPORT OF THE OIL AND GAS APPELLATE REFEREE
BEFORE THE CoIuoR&TI0N COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OIa,&IioMA APPLICANT: RELIEF SOUGHT: NEWFIELD EXPLORATION MID-CONTINENT INC. POOLING CAUSE CD NO. 201407973-T LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 16
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
\)(, Ii! BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA MAR 122014 APPLICANT: LORI WROTENBERY, DIRECTOR OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION DIVISION OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION RESPONDENT(S): SUPERIOR
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA DEXXON, INC. DEXXON, INC. REPORT OF THE OIL AND GAS APPELLATE REFERE E
APPLICANT : BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA DEXXON, INC.,4 F I L E D FEB 11 20 1 9 COURT CLERK'S O FFICE-DKC C QRPORATION COMMISSIO K OF OKd.AHpMA RELIEF SOUGHT: POOLIN G CAUSE
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA APPLICANT: OKLAHOMA ENERGY ACQUISITIONS, LP
BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA RELIEF SOUGHT: POOLING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH, RANGE 5 WEST, KINGFISHER COUNTY, OKLAHOMA CAUSE CD NO. 201707360 ORDER
More informationINTERIM ORDER OF THE COMMISSION MULTIUNIT HORIZONTAL WELL. Findings
BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA APPLICANT: MEWBOURNE OIL COMPANY RELIEF SOUGHT: MULTIUNIT HORIZONTAL WELL LAND COVERED: SECTIONS 21 AND 28, TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH, RANGE 18 WEST,
More informationFILED JUN BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA CHESAPEAKE OPERATING, L.L.C. AND CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, L.L.C.
BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA APPLICANTS: CHESAPEAKE OPERATING, L.L.C. AND CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, L.L.C. RELIEF SOUGHT: INCREASED WELL DENSITY CAUSE CD NO. 201604276 LAND
More informationAPPLICATION. COMES NOW the Applicant, Continental Resources, Inc., and shows the Honorable Corporation Commission the following:
3'~ FILE FEB 1120 1 5 BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STAT RXICE - OKC I ION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA APPLICANT: 1 CAUSE CD NO. RELIEF SOUGHT: 2O1O 0797 LANDS COVERED: SECTIONS 17,20 AND 29, TOWNSHIP
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA RIMROCK RESOURCES OPERATING, LLC RIMROCK RESOURCES OPERATING, LLC
APPLICANT: BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA RIMROCK RESOURCES OPERATING, LLC F I LS N0V2221J15 COURT CLERK'S OFFICE - TULSA CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA RELIEF REQUESTED:
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE O}(LAHO1A
BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA APPLICANT: ROYAL RESOURCES COMPANY, LLC RELIEF SOUGHT: DRILLING AND SPACING UNIT CAUSE CD 201300659-T LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E/2 NW/4 OF SECTION 9,
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
A 7 APPLICANT: SAMSON RESOURCES COMPANY BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA RELIEF SOUGHT: INCREASED WELL CAUSE CD 201305955-T DENSITY LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 14
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA FINDINGS AND ORDER
BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA APPLICANT: RELIEF SOUGHT: POOLING (PART OF A MULTIUNIT HORIZONTAL WELL) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 17 EAST, PITTSBURG
More informationDrilling When the Well Goes Dry: The Oklahoma Corporation Commission & the Police Power Exception to the Automatic Stay
Oklahoma Law Review Volume 70 Number 3 2018 Drilling When the Well Goes Dry: The Oklahoma Corporation Commission & the Police Power Exception to the Automatic Stay Connor R. Bourland Follow this and additional
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA DIRECTOR, OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION DIVISION, OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISION
BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ri I L E SEP 172014 APPLICANT: RESPONDENTS: RELIEF SOUGHT: RON DUNKIN, ACTING DIRECTOR, OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION DIVISION, OKLAHOMA CORPORATION
More informationMarch 8, I. Unit Background
March 8, 2017 Hand Delivery Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission Mr. Lawrence E. Bengal, Director Mr. Shane Khoury, Deputy Director, General Counsel 301 Natural Resources Drive, Suite 102 Little Rock, AR 72205
More informationRAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS HEARINGS DIVISION
OIL & GAS DOCKET NO. 09-0296648 RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS HEARINGS DIVISION THE APPLICATION OF VANTAGE FORT WORTH ENERGY LLC PURSUANT TO THE MINERAL INTEREST POOLING ACT FOR THE FORMATION OF A POOLED
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Document Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA In Re: Bankruptcy No. 68-00039 Great Plains Royalty Corporation, Chapter 7 Debtor. Great Plains Royalty Corporation, / Plaintiff,
More informationTHE INDOMINUS REX H-6X, 3H-6X, 4H-6X, 5H-6H, 6H-6X, 7H-6X, AND 8H-6X WELLS (PART OF A MULTIUNIT HORIZONTAL WELL
BEFORE THE CORPORATON COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA F ILED OCT 1 1 2017 COURT CLERK'S OFFICE TULSA porpqration CoMMISSION INCREASED WELL DENSITY FOR OF OKLAHOMA THE INDOMINUS REX 16092H-6X, 3H-6X,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Page 1 of 6 NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1360 (Opposition No. 123,395)
More informationMai 1 7 2ao~ F I LED / RECEIVED APPLICANT: CHESAPEAKE OPERATING, INC. AND CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION LIMITED PARTNERSHIP MAY F
7 BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OK j, REPLACEMENT F~~~~~ E D ON Mai 1 7 2ao~ F I LED / RECEIVED APPLICANT: CHESAPEAKE OPERATING, INC. AND CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEWFIELD EXPLORATION ) MID-CONTINENT, INC.
APPLICANT : BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NEWFIELD EXPLORATION ) MID-CONTINENT, INC. F I L E D S t F 2 2 2010 CO URT CLE R K'S OFFICE -OKC CURPO RATIA N COMMISSION O F OKLAHOMA
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA AUG & CIMAREX ENERGY CO. UNIT PETROLEUM COMPANY
APPLICANT: BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA AUG & CIMAREX ENERGY CO. D L E 3 "012 COURT CLLRIfl OFFICE cerkaflon COMMI1111161CM OF OKLAHOMA RELIEF SOUGHT: CLARIFICATION, CAUSE
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA FINDINGS AND ORDER
BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA APPLICANT: NEWFIELD EXPLORATION MID-CONTINENT INC. RELIEF SOUGHT: DRILLING AND SPACING UNITS LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SECTIONS 9,16 AND 21, TOWNSHIP
More informationBEFORE THE Coiu'oixrIoN COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA CRYSTAL MOUNTAIN, LLC
d e h b MAR 05 2013 APPLICANT: BEFORE THE Coiu'oixrIoN COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA CRYSTAL MOUNTAIN, LLC F 1 L E D FE 2 12013 CLLKS OFFICE - OC )RPCIATION COMMISSIQt$ OF OKLAHOMA RELIEF SOUGHT:
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA XTO ENERGY INC. ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
/ () BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA APPLICANT: XTO ENERGY INC. RELIEF SOUGHT: POOLING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 3 EAST, CARTER COUNTY, OKLAHOMA CAUSE
More informationCIVIL DISTRICT COURT RULES 17A JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Rule 1 Rule 2 Rule 3 Rule 4 Rule 5 Rule 6 Rule 7 Rule 8 Rule 9 Rule 10 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ROCKINGHAM COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION CIVIL DISTRICT COURT RULES 17A JUDICIAL
More informationSTANDING ORDER FOR CALENDAR Y * Room 2101
State of Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County Ronald F. Bartkowicz 2101 Richard J. Daley Center Judge Chicago, Illinois 60602 STANDING ORDER FOR CALENDAR Y * Room 2101 Phone Numbers: Case Coordinator:
More informationConstitutional review by district court of administrative decisions and orders. A. Scope of rule. This rule governs writs of certiorari to
1-075. Constitutional review by district court of administrative decisions and orders. A. Scope of rule. This rule governs writs of certiorari to administrative officers and agencies pursuant to the New
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
- - ;~:~ 6 BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA APPLICANT: MARJO OPERATING CO., INC. ) ) RELIEF SOUGHT : DRILLING AND SPACING UNITS ) CAUSE CD NO. ) 200807079-T LAND COVERED : SECTION
More informationCase 5:15-cv M Document 56 Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:15-cv-01262-M Document 56 Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA MARCIA W. DAVILLA, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) Case No. CIV-15-1262-M
More informationIn the Court of Appeals of Georgia
FIRST DIVISION PHIPPS, C. J., ELLINGTON, P. J., and BRANCH, J. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CADDO COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CADDO COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA IVAN J. SIMMONS, MADALINE M. THOMPSON, AND GAYLON LEE MITCHUSSON, v. FOR THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS, ANADARKO PETROLEUM
More informationPROPOSAL FOR DECISION PROCEDURAL HISTORY
OIL & GAS DOCKET NO. 03-0253815 ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST INTEGRITY PETROLEUM GROUP, INC. (OPERATOR NO. 424776) FOR VIOLATIONS OF STATEWIDE RULES ON THE CHAMBCO INTEREST LP LEASE, WELL NO. 5 (DRILLING
More informationCase Document 162 Filed in TXSB on 11/07/18 Page 1 of 6
Case 18-35441 Document 162 Filed in TXSB on 11/07/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE: Chapter 11 Francis Drilling Fluids, Ltd.,
More informationJ S - 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. CASE NO. CV JST (FMOx) GLOBAL DÉCOR, INC. and THOMAS H. WOLF.
Case :-cv-00-jls-fmo Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 0 GLOBAL DÉCOR, INC. and THOMAS H. WOLF vs. Plaintiffs, THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Chieftain Royalty Company v. Marathon Oil Company Doc. 41 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA CHIEFTAIN ROYALTY COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-17-334-SPS
More informationscc Doc 51 Filed 07/16/15 Entered 07/16/15 15:54:38 Main Document Pg 1 of 23
Pg 1 of 23 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) In re: ) Chapter 11 ) SABINE OIL & GAS CORPORATION, et al., 1 ) Case No. 15-11835 (SCC) ) Debtors. ) (Joint Administration Requested)
More informationChapter III ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. Administrative law concerns the authority and procedures of administrative agencies.
Chapter III ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Administrative law concerns the authority and procedures of administrative agencies. Administrative agencies are governmental bodies other than the courts or the legislatures
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 informationPlaintiffs Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, Colorado and the City of Lafayette allege as follows:
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO 1437 Bannock Street, Denver, Colorado 80202 Plaintiffs: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BOULDER COUNTY, Colorado; and CITY OF LAFAYETTE, Colorado; v.
More informationCase 3:16-cv CWR-LRA Document 25 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 9
Case 3:16-cv-00350-CWR-LRA Document 25 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION NYKOLAS ALFORD and STEPHEN THOMAS; and ACLU
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON. v. CCA No.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON STATE OF TENNESSEE, v. CCA No. PHILIP R. WORKMAN, Shelby County No. B81209 Defendant. APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL PURSUANT TO RULES 9 &
More informationCase Document 2587 Filed in TXSB on 09/24/13 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Case 12-36187 Document 2587 Filed in TXSB on 09/24/13 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE: ATP OIL & GAS CASE NO. 12-36187 CORPORATION, (CHAPTER
More informationCase grs Doc 54 Filed 02/02/17 Entered 02/02/17 15:37:11 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 10
Document Page 1 of 10 IN RE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LEXINGTON DIVISION DANNY ROBERT LAINHART DEBTOR STEPHEN PALMER, Chapter 7 Trustee V. PAUL MILLER FORD, INC., et al.
More informationCase GLT Doc 1179 Filed 10/02/17 Entered 10/02/17 19:04:53 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 19
Document Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA In re: RUE21, INC., et al., 1 Debtors. Case No. 17-22045 (GLT) Chapter 11 (Jointly Administered) RUE21,
More informationCase 5:10-cv C Document 1 Filed 07/28/10 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:10-cv-00810-C Document 1 Filed 07/28/10 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ROBERT RENNIE, JR., on behalf of } himself and all others similarly
More informationAOGC Fayetteville Shale Activity Report To Be Presented to the Arkansas Legislative Council Reporting Period: July 1, 2011 through September 30, 2011
1 AOGC Fayetteville Shale Activity Report To Be Presented to the Arkansas Legislative Council Reporting Period: July 1, 2011 through September 30, 2011 1. Inspection Staff A. Number of Full Time Inspector
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Skytop Meadow Community : Association, Inc. : : v. : No. 276 C.D. 2017 : Submitted: June 16, 2017 Christopher Paige and Michele : Anna Paige, : Appellants : BEFORE:
More informationPACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION. Case 2:13-cv KJM-DAD Document 80 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 3
Case :-cv-0-kjm-dad Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of M. REED HOPPER, Cal. Bar No. E-mail: mrh@pacificlegal.org ANTHONY L. FRANÇOIS, Cal. Bar No. 0 E-mail: alf@pacificlegal.org Pacific Legal Foundation Sacramento,
More informationRAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS. Hearings Division
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS Hearings Division Hearings Director Ryan D. Larson Mr. Larson began at the Commission in July 2014. He holds a Bachelor s Degree from the University of California, Los Angeles
More informationCase 4:09-cv WRW Document 28 Filed 03/16/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION
Case 4:09-cv-00936-WRW Document 28 Filed 03/16/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LOUIS FROUD, et al. PLAINTIFF V. 4:09CV00936-WRW ANADARKO
More informationCAUSE NO. IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS INTERNATIONAL FIDELITY INSURANCE CO., AGENT GLENN STRICKLAND DBA A-1 BONDING CO., VS.
CAUSE NO. PD-0642&0643&0644-18 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 6/21/2018 12:21 PM Accepted 6/21/2018 12:41 PM DEANA WILLIAMSON CLERK IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS INTERNATIONAL
More information3RD CIRCUIT LOCAL APPELLATE RULES Proposed amendments Page 1
3RD CIRCUIT LOCAL APPELLATE RULES Proposed amendments 2008 - Page 1 1 L.A.R. 1.0 SCOPE AND TITLE OF RULES 2 1.1 Scope and Organization of Rules 3 The following Local Appellate Rules (L.A.R.) are adopted
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-000-fjm Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 WO Krystal Energy Co. Inc., vs. Plaintiff, The Navajo Nation, Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA CV -000-PHX-FJM
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY UNITED STATES COAST GUARD. UNITED STATES COAST GUARD Complainant. vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY UNITED STATES COAST GUARD UNITED STATES COAST GUARD Complainant vs. STEPHEN SCOTT PERYER Respondent Docket Number 2012-0105 Enforcement Activity
More informationCOMMERCIAL CALENDAR N (Effective November 17, 2010)
COMMERCIAL CALENDAR N (Effective November 17, 2010) JUDGE DANIEL J. PIERCE 2307 RICHARD J. DALEY CENTER CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 Case Coordinator: Kate Moore 312-603-4804 STANDING ORDER FOR PRETRIAL PROCEDURE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OPINION AND ORDER
Case 4:02-cv-00427-GKF-FHM Document 79 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/31/2009 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA WILLIAM S. FLETCHER, CHARLES A. PRATT, JUANITA
More informationCase 2:05-cv TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-00195-TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DIGITAL CHOICE OF TEXAS, LLC V. CIVIL NO. 2:05-CV-195(TJW)
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT BLOCK T OPERATING, LLC, ET AL. **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 13-58 JOSEPH B. FREEMAN, JR., ET AL. VERSUS BLOCK T OPERATING, LLC, ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE,
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.
STATE OF IDAHO County of KOOTENAI ss FILED AT O'Clock M CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT Deputy IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI PAUL
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 16-468 FRANK HAYES GLADNEY AND MARGARET STELLA GLADNEY GUIDROZ VERSUS ANGLO-DUTCH ENERGY, L.L.C. AND ANGLO-DUTCH (EVEREST) L.L.C. ********** APPEAL FROM
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON BUSINESS COURT DIVISION. via telephone (check one) /
STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON BUSINESS COURT DIVISION PLAINTIFF NAME v. DEFENDANT NAME Case No. Hon. Richard N. LaFlamme / PLAINTIFF S COUNSEL NAME, ADDRESS, PHONE AND
More informationApril 14, 2006 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 14, 2006 OIL AND GAS DOCKET NO. 7B-0242264 ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST GRIFFIN, BILLY PAUL, SOLE PROPRIETOR, GRIFFIN, BILL DRILLING (OPERATOR # 333940) FOR VIOLATIONS OF STATEWIDE RULES ON THE RUTHERFORD,
More informationrdd Doc 185 Filed 03/26/19 Entered 03/26/19 20:51:31 Main Document Pg 1 of 14
Pg 1 of 14 Hearing Date: April 16, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. (prevailing Eastern Time Objection Deadline: April 9, 2019, at 4:00 p.m.. (prevailing Eastern Time Stephen E. Hessler, P.C. James H.M. Sprayregen,
More information9:30 a.m. MOTION CALL, CASE MANAGEMENT, STATUS DATES 10:00 a.m. 2:30 p.m. MATTERS SET BY THE COURT
HONORABLE FRANKLIN U. VALDERRAMA STANDING ORDER CALENDAR 3 Room 2402, Richard J. Daley Center Telephone: 312-603-5432 No Fax or Email Law Clerks: Alexandra M. Franco Samantha Grund-Wickramasekera Court
More informationREQUEST TO DISTRICT CIVIL CALENDAR CLERK
FORM 22D REQUEST TO DISTRICT CIVIL CALENDAR CLERK Please calendar case number CALENDAR FOR THE SESSION BEGINNING (All non-jury matters are set on the first day of each session. Peremptory settings must
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DANIEL BELLO HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED February 19, 2013 v No. 307544 Wayne Circuit Court GAUCHO, LLC, d/b/a GAUCHO LC No. 08-015861-CZ STEAKHOUSE,
More informationSTATE OF VERMONT. Decision on Motion to Strike Untimely Notice of Appeal and Motion to Allow Untimely Appeal
SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Docket No. 96-8-16 Vtec Laberge Shooting Range JO Decision on Motions Decision on Motion to Strike Untimely Notice of Appeal and Motion to Allow Untimely
More informationRULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE PROCEDURE OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI AS ADOPTED
RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE PROCEDURE OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI AS ADOPTED TABLE OF CONTENTS Article I Officers 2 Article II Undue Influence 4 Article III Meetings
More informationCOMMERCIAL CALENDAR N (Effective February 8, 2013)
COMMERCIAL CALENDAR N (Effective February 8, 2013) JUDGE MARGARET ANN BRENNAN 2307 RICHARD J. DALEY CENTER CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 Case Coordinator: Ann Ostrowski 312-603-4804 Law Clerk: Andrew Cook 312-603-7259
More informationalg Doc 1331 Filed 06/06/12 Entered 06/06/12 15:56:08 Main Document Pg 1 of 16
Pg 1 of 16 PEPPER HAMILTON LLP Suite 1800 4000 Town Center Southfield, Michigan 48075 Deborah Kovsky-Apap (DK 6147) Telephone: 248.359.7331 Facsimile: 313.731.1572 E-mail: kovskyd@pepperlaw.com PEPPER
More informationSTANDING ORDER. Judge Jerry A. Esrig Calendar R Courtroom 2208
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION STANDING ORDER Judge Jerry A. Esrig Calendar R Courtroom 2208 Chambers: (312) 603-6068 jerry.esrig@cookcountyil.gov Courtroom
More informationUnited States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Order Form (01/2005) United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge Blanche M. Manning Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge CASE NUMBER 06
More informationFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 16, 2009 The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit proposes to amend its Rules. These amendments are
More informationCase KG Doc 610 Filed 02/28/14 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 13-12783-KG Doc 610 Filed 02/28/14 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: GREEN FIELD ENERGY SERVICES, INC., et. al. Debtor. Chapter 11 Jointly Administered
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT LAW DIVISION JUDGE RAYMOND W. MITCHELL STANDING ORDER.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT LAW DIVISION JUDGE RAYMOND W. MITCHELL STANDING ORDER March 29, 2012 This Standing Order supercedes all prior Standing Orders regarding pending
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
6:17-cv-00006-RAW Document 25 Filed in ED/OK on 06/13/17 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA DAVID LANDON SPEED, Plaintiff, v. JMA ENERGY COMPANY, LLC,
More informationWilliam G. Kanellis, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., Counsel for Defendant.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 07-532C Filed: July 7, 2008 TO BE PUBLISHED AXIOM RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, INC., Plaintiff, Bid Protest; Injunction; v. Notice Of Appeal As Of Right, Fed. R.
More informationINDIVIDUAL PRACTICES OF JUDGE DEBORAH A. BATTS
INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES OF JUDGE DEBORAH A. BATTS Nothing in my Individual Practices supersedes a specific time period for filing a motion specified by statute or Federal Rule including but not limited to
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA STAFF'S REVISED PROPOSED RULES. March 6,2013 TITLE 165. CORPORATION COMMISSION
BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA IN THE MATTER OF A PERMANENT ) RULEMAKING OF THE OKLAHOMA ) CORPORATION COMMISSION ) CAUSE RM NO. 201300002 AMENDING OAC 165:5, RULES OF ) PRACTICE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND R U L E S O R D E R. This Court s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND R U L E S O R D E R This Court s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure having submitted its One Hundred Fifty-Second Report to the Court, recommending
More information