BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE IN RESPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR POST-ORDER RELIEF
|
|
- Rafe Foster
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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 MARCHAND UNIT ON THE JOE BOB NELSON AND NICONA NELSON PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 8 WEST, GRADY COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 771:) Q1OOolf CAUS1 N1 t E DEC COURT CLERK'S OFFICE OKC CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE IN RESPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR POST-ORDER RELIEF CAUSE SUMMAR The Applicant, ("EXCO") is a former operator of the Norge Marchand Unit, an enhanced recovery project covering the Marchand Sand common source of supply, that includes the above described property. In 2009, Mr. Joe Bob Nelson and Mrs. Nicona Nelson, two of the Respondents named in the Application, believed that areas on their property located in the Norge Marchand Unit in Grady County, Oklahoma were contaminated by spills of saltwater and other deleterious substances from oil and gas operations. That same year they hired Jerry Black, an environmental and remediation consultant, to determine the extent of the contamination. Mr. Black installed monitoring wells on the Nelson property and completed his evaluation. The Nelsons later filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Grady County' alleging that releases of saltwater and oil from the operations of EXCO had harmed their property. In August 2010, the Nelsons appeared for a deposition and testified that they wanted any soil and water on their property that was affected by such releases cleaned up. EXCO subsequently hired a remediation expert and an expert hydrologist to investigate and evaluate the property for the purpose of identifying areas of soil and water pollution caused by releases from Norge Marchand No Well and its associated flowlines and for the purpose of proposing methods to for clean up the land. The remediation expert and the hydrologist prepared a plan of remediation after evaluating the site. The hydrologist also recommended additional testing to determine the impact of saltrelated constituents on the soil and in the water existing in the soil. The experts concluded that the existing monitoring wells that were installed and constructed by Mr. Black be plugged and 1 See Nelson, et ux, v. EXCO Resources,Inc., Case No. CJ , District Court of Grady County, Oklahoma, where the plaintiff asserted private rights claims against EXCO, sounding in nuisance and trespass. The basis of these claims were the allegation that the oil and saltwater released during the EXCO pipeline leaks harmed the Nelsons' property. The Nelsons sought an award of money damages to compensate for EXCO's actions.
2 abandoned and replaced by a new, permanent monitoring well. They made this recommendation because they believed that these existing wells increased the likelihood of cross-contamination between the substances in the soil and in the water, and because these wells had to be removed to properly remediate the site. EXCO subsequently commenced this proceeding before the Commission seeking approval of a remediation plan for Nelson's land. The lawsuit in Grady County District Court was later settled and as part of the settlement the Nelsons allegedly agreed that they would not oppose in any way any action proposed by EXCO in the proceeding before the Commission, including, without limitation, dismissal of the action or proposed closure by no further action. On February 1St and 8th of 2012, the matter was heard by the Administrative Law Judge ("AU"). The Nelsons did not appear allegedly because of the contractual provision which they believed barred them from opposing EXCO's proposed closure plan. Mr. Black did not appear at the hearing because he was not a party and had no notice of the hearing. EXCO presented its argument and evidence unopposed with no objection from the Pollution and Abatement Division of the Commission. After hearing all of the evidence and testimony, the ALJ recommended that the Commission approve EXCO's remediation plan that included remediation of the area near the Norge Marchand No Well and flowline, including additional testing, soil remediation, removal of existing monitoring wells and the construction of a new, permanent monitoring well. On February 28, 2012, the Commission issued Order No that approved EXCO's proposed remediation plan and agreed that the described remediation work was accomplished and carried out by EXCO according to the plan of remediation. The Commission also held that the operation of the Norge Marchand No Well and its associated flowlines were in full compliance with the rules and regulations of the Commission and posed no threat to the health, safety and welfare of the Respondents and citizens of the State of Oklahoma. This Order became a final order of the Commission on March 30, 2012 and cannot be appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court after this date. 2 Sometime after Order No was issued, Mr. Black took exception to some of the language in the Order, alleging that during the hearing certain false and inaccurate evidence was presented regarding the monitoring wells installed by him. On March 9, 2012, Mr. Black through his attorney, Wes Johnston, filed a Motion for Post-Order Relief under OAC 165: seeking modification of Order No to remove the references to the information 2 See Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules, Title 12, Appendix 1, Article Part IV (b), Section Rule Mode and Time of Appeal from the Corporation Commission which states "(a) Time to Appeal from Order in Exercise of Powers Pursuant to Oil and Gas Conservation Act and Preparation of the Record. Any party desiring to procure review of a decision of the Corporation Commission rendered in the exercise of its regulatory powers under the Oil and Gas Conservation Act may commence an appeal therefrom in compliance with the rules in Part IV(a) and IV(b) by filing a petition in error within thirty (30) days of the date the decision sought to be reviewed is rendered. A petition in error will be deemed filed on date of mailing when mailed in accordance with Rule 1.4(c). 2
3 he deemed incorrect or for a rehearing so that evidence he deemed accurate regarding the installation of the wells could be presented to the Commission and admitted to the record. 3 Mr. Black didn't have a hearing with respect to his Motion or provide any evidence to the Commission in support of the allegations in his Motion within the thirty-day time period in which Order No became a final order. Mr. Black also didn't file an appeal in the form of a petition in error with the Oklahoma Supreme Court concerning the Order within thirty (30) days of the date the Order was issued by the Commission. Over the next several months the hearing on the Motion was scheduled with the Commission but subsequently continued several times because Mr. Black was unable to attend the hearings or was unable to provide his affidavit attesting to the inaccuracies that were allegedly found in the Order. Finally on October 8, 2012 Mr. Black filed his Supplement to Motion for Post-Order Relief that included his affidavit with the attached evidence in support of his allegations with the Commission for review by the AU in consideration of his Motion. EXCO subsequently filed its Response to Mr. Black's Motion for Post-Order Relief, arguing that the Commission must dismiss the Motion because the Commission didn't modify or set aside the Order within thirty days from the date that the Order was issued, citing the holding of the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Turpen v. Okla. Corp. Comm., 1988 OK 126, 769 P.2d 1309, and because Mr. Black didn't file an appeal of the Order with the Oklahoma Supreme Court within that same thirty-day time period as required by the rules of the Supreme Court. EXCO argued that Commission orders must be modified or revised or appealed to the Supreme Court within thirty days after being issued by the Commission or the orders automatically become final orders, and any attempt to revise, amend or modify such a final order after the thirty-day time period is an impermissible collateral attack upon the order. RECOMMENDATIONS After taking into consideration the Movant's affidavit and the arguments of counsel, it is the recommendation of the ALJ that the Movant's Motion for Post-Order Relief be dismissed as being out-of-time in that the related affidavit and evidence were presented to the Commission for review more than five months after Order No became a final order on March 30, The affidavit and evidence submitted by the Movant also do not touch upon substantial issues See OAC 165: which states that "(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.
4 that would affect or change the recommendation of the ALJ in his report to the Commission following the hearing on the merits that EXCO's proposed remediation plan be approved. APPEARANCES Wes Johnston, Attorney at Law, appeared for the Movant, Jerry Black; Eric King, Attorney at Law, appeared for EXCO; and Sally Shipley, Deputy General Counsel, Oil and Gas Conservation Division, appeared on behalf of the Commission. JURISDICTION The Commission has jurisdiction over the subject matter and notice has been given in all respects as required by law and the rules of the Commission. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 52 O.S. 112 provides that anyone affected by a Commission order, including non mineral interest owners, has standing before the Commission to seek relief. Marshal Oil Corporation V. Adams, at 688 P.2d 37 (Okl. 1983). 52 O.S. 112 provides: Any person affected by any legislative or administrative order of the Commission shall have the right at any time to apply to the Commission to repeal, amend, modify, or supplement the same. Such application shall be in writing and shall be heard as expeditiously as possible after notice of the hearing thereon shall have been given in the manner provided by Section 14 of this act. As stated by the Supreme Court in Forest Oil Corporation v. Corporation Commission, 807 P.2d 774 (Okl. 1990): Under Section 112, any person affected by a Corporation Commission order has standing to apply to the Commission for relief. Although Section 112 appears to state that such an application for relief can be made "at any time" the rules of the Commission and holdings of the Oklahoma Supreme Court provide defined time-periods in which such applications for relief must be made. OAC 165: provides that a motion for rehearing, or a motion to set aside or to modify an order, or for any other form of relief from the order must be made within ten (10) days after an order of the Commission is entered. Such 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 but can be used to modify the language of the order. (See Footnote 3 herein). OAC 165: provides that when more that 10 days have passed since the issuance of an order, the order can only be modified by an application to vacate or modify the order in a
5 separate cause of action. 4 In the alternative, orders of the Commission can be appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court by filing a proper petition in error only within 30 days after the issuance of the order. Orders that aren't appealed within the 30-day period are final orders that cannot be appealed. (See Footnote 2 herein). The requirement of timeliness as applied to those seeking post-order relief from Commission orders is further emphasized by the Supreme Court in its holding in the Turpen case. Here the Court held that Commission orders that are not appealed within 30 days after their issue date become final orders that cannot be appealed, and that motions for post-order relief that seek to modify or correct the language of a Commission order but not affect the relief granted under the order must be made by the movant and have action taken in response by the Commission within that same thirty-day time period in which an appeal must be made. In other words, a motion to modify an order does not extend the time in which that order becomes a final order that cannot be modified by a motion. 5 See OAC 165: which states "(a) At any time subsequent to ten (10) days after entry of an order of the Commission, an application to vacate or modify the order, or for any other form of relief from the order, filed by any person, whether or not a party of record in the original cause, shall be treated as a separate cause, and shall be governed by rules applicable to the commencement of a cause. The application shall: (1) Identify the order sought to be modified or vacated. (2) State specifically the parts or provisions sought to be modified or vacated. (3) State specifically the modifications or vacations sought. (4) State specifically the grounds upon which such relief is sought. (b) Notice of hearing of the application shall be served and published as required upon the commencement of the cause. The application shall be set for hearing before the Commission or Administrative Law Judge or Public Utility Referee, as provided in this Chapter as to the commencement of a cause." See Turpen v. Okla. Corp. Comm., 1988 OK 126, 769 P.2d 1309 which states in part: Oklahoma jurisprudence treats a motion to modify a Commission order differently from that of a district court. Commission orders automatically become final after 30 days. Once an order has become final, its vacation is beyond that agency's power. The Commission is without authority even to review and modify the order unless statutory notice of a hearing concerning the proposed modification is given to all interested parties. Even during the 30 day-period before an order becomes "final"--in the sense of passing beyond the reach of appellate review--the Commission may act upon a motion to rehear, modify or reconsider its order but is not required to do so. It is well established that the Commission has no power to entertain a rehearing or reconsideration request of a decision after an appeal from it has been made to this court. Extant case law compels us to hold that, insofar as Rule 24 (currently OAC 165: ) may be construed to empower the Commission to entertain a request to modify an appealable order after the lapse of 30 days from that order's issuance, its provisions plainly conflict with 12 O.S (a) and are hence unauthorized by law. There are two primary reasons for according a different procedural consequence to a motion to modify a Commission order and a motion to modify a district court judgment. The first reason is the difference between an appeal from a district court judgment and one from a Commission order. Although Art. 9 20, OkI. Const., provides that an appeal from the Commission shall be taken "directly to the Supreme Court in the manner and in the same time in which appeals may be taken to the Supreme Court from the District Courts," this means only that appeals from the Commission are the same as appeals from the district court unless the law provides differently. Otherwise, this language conflicts with other parts of 20 which state that an appeal from the Commission to the Supreme Court "shall be of right" and "directly to the Supreme Court" and "shall be to the Supreme Court only." These provisions assure that an appellant will have the opportunity to be heard in this court and gain access for immediate review of the Commission's order. The second reason is that the terms of 12 O.S.Supp (a)--which provide that if a motion for a new trial is filed in the district court no appeal may be taken to this court until the trial court rules on the
6 In this present cause, the Movant timely filed his Motion for Post-Order Relief within the 10- day deadline set forth in OAC 165: but failed to bring the matter before the Commission to present his evidence and testimony in a hearing or to file affidavits and evidence in support of his Motion with the Commission within the 30-day time period required by the Supreme Court. The Movant filed his supporting affidavit and evidence more than six months after Order No became a final order and there was thus nothing that the Commission could review or respond to with respect to his Motion before the Order became final. As noted by EXCO in its analysis of the Turpin case, OAC 165: provides the grounds upon which Mr. Black can file such a motion but does not empower the Commission to consider his request to modify an appealable order after the lapse of 30 days from that order's issuance. EXCO correctly concludes that the Commission is without jurisdiction to consider the his Motion for Post-Order Relief. After taking into consideration the Movant's affidavit and the arguments of counsel, it is the recommendation of the ALJ that the Movant's Motion for Post-Order Relief be dismissed as being out-of-time in that the related affidavit and evidence were presented to the Commission for review more than six months after Order No became a final order on March 30, The affidavit and evidence submitted by the Movant also do not touch upon substantial issues that would affect or change the recommendation of the ALJ in his report to the Commission following the hearing on the merits that EXCO's proposed remediation plan be approved. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 26th day of December, DAVID LEAVITT ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE xc: Wes Johnston Eric King Sally Shipley Michael Decker Oil Law Records Commission Files motion--do not apply to appeals from Commission orders. (Footnotes in the cited passage deleted for brevity).
BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA
BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA APPLICANT: CITIZENS ENERGY II, L.LC. RELIEF SOUGHT: FORCED POOLING CAUSE CD NO. 201506 166-T/O LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST,
More informationBEFORE 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 ) RELIEF SOUGHT: NON-COMMERCIAL SALT WATER ) DISPOSAL WELL ) VICTORIA FALLS # 1-5 Well
BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA APPLICANT: HUNTER DISPOSAL LLC ) (WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF ) PLYMOUTH EXPLORATION, L.L.C.) ) 110 W. 7th St., SUITE 2600 ) TULSA, OK 74119-1031
More informationAPPENDIX TO CODE OF ORDINANCES USE AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
TO CODE OF ORDINANCES USE AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES The following information is provided to assist in the use and proper maintenance of this Code of Ordinances. DISTRIBUTION OF COPIES
More informationStanding Practice Order Pursuant to 20.1 of Act Establishing Rules Governing Practice and Procedure in Medical Assistance Provider Appeals
Standing Practice Order Pursuant to 20.1 of Act 2002-142 Establishing Rules Governing Practice and Procedure in Medical Assistance Provider Appeals TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I--PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS Subpart
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 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 informationPROPOSAL FOR DECISION PROCEDURAL HISTORY
OIL & GAS DOCKET NO. 04-0234739 ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST SOUTHERN WORKOVER, INC., (OPERATOR NO. 805524) FOR VIOLATIONS OF STATEWIDE RULES ON THE STATE TRACT 61 LEASE, WELL NO. 1 (RRC ID NO. 098360),
More informationHAWAII ADMINISTRATIVE RULES TITLE 12 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SUBTITLE 7 BOARDS CHAPTER 47
HAWAII ADMINISTRATIVE RULES TITLE 12 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SUBTITLE 7 BOARDS CHAPTER 47 LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Subchapter 1
More informationInformation or instructions: Plea in abatement motion & Order to quash service Alternate Form
Information or instructions: Plea in abatement motion & Order to quash service Alternate Form 1. The following form may be used to request the court to cancel or quash service of citation on a party and
More informationARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CA10-636 Opinion Delivered February 9, 2011 RICHARD L. MYERS ET AL. APPELLANTS V. PETER KARL BOGNER, SR., ET AL. APPELLEES APPEAL FROM THE CARROLL COUNTY CIRCUIT
More informationWYOMING RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR CIRCUIT COURTS
WYOMING RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR CIRCUIT COURTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Rule 1. Scope. 2. Applicability. 3. Pleadings. 3.1. Commencement of action [Effective until June 1 2018.] 3.1. Commencement of action
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 informationNOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND FAIRNESS HEARING
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA STAMPS BROTHERS OIL & GAS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Case No. CIV-14-0182-HE CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC. Defendant. NOTICE OF PROPOSED
More informationCAPITAL MARKET AUTHORITY THE RESOLUTION OF SECURITIES DISPUTES PROCEEDINGS REGULATIONS
CAPITAL MARKET AUTHORITY THE RESOLUTION OF SECURITIES DISPUTES PROCEEDINGS REGULATIONS English Translation of the Official Arabic Text Issued by the Board of Capital Market Authority Pursuant to its Resolution
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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
M.R. 3140 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Order entered March 15, 2013. (Deleted material is struck through and new material is underscored, except in Rule 660A, which is entirely new.) Effective
More informationCHAPTER 20. GAS AND HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE SAFETY
CHAPTER 20. GAS AND HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE SAFETY Subchapter Section 1. General Provisions... 165:20-1-1 3. Pipeline Assessments... 165:20-3-1 5. Safety Regulations for Gas Pipelines... 165:20-5-1 7.
More informationbeing preempted by the court's criminal calendar.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF «County» «PlaintiffName», vs. «DefendantName», Plaintiff, Defendant. Case No. «CaseNumber» SCHEDULING
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:14-cv-00182-HE Document 91 Filed 10/27/16 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA STAMPS BROTHERS OIL & GAS, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. CIV-14-0182-HE
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 informationALABAMA SURFACE MINING COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
ALABAMA SURFACE MINING COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 880-X-5A SPECIAL RULES FOR HEARINGS AND APPEALS SPECIAL RULES APPLICABLE TO SURFACE COAL MINING HEARINGS AND APPEALS TABLE OF CONTENTS 880-X-5A-.01
More informationChapter 132 STREETS AND SIDEWALKS. ARTICLE I Street Openings and Excavations
Chapter 132 STREETS AND SIDEWALKS ARTICLE I Street Openings and Excavations 132-1. Definitions. 132-2. Permits required. 132-3. Permits not transferable. 132-4. Application for permit; fee. 132-5. Conditions
More informationRESPONSIBLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT
Province of Alberta RESPONSIBLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT Statutes of Alberta, Current as of December 17, 2014 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer Suite 700,
More informationRAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL HEARINGS SECTION
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL HEARINGS SECTION ENFORCEMENT ACTION FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BY DISCOVERY PETROLEUM, L.L.C. (220861), AS TO THE THEO C ROGERS (14015) LEASE,
More informationFREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING FILING APPEALS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING FILING APPEALS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA NOTE: (1) This information is intended for pro-se parties. There are significant filing differences between attorneys
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 informationELY SHOSHONE RULES OFAPPELLATE PROCEDURE
[Rev. 10/10/2007 2:43:59 PM] ELY SHOSHONE RULES OFAPPELLATE PROCEDURE I. APPLICABILITY OF RULES RULE 1. SCOPE, CONSTRUCTION OF RULES (a) Scope of Rules. These rules govern procedure in appeals to the Appellate
More informationRule Change #2001(16) The Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure Chapter 26. Colorado Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Courts Appendix to Chapter 26
Rule Change #2001(16) The Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure Chapter 26. Colorado Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Courts Appendix to Chapter 26 The following rules are Amended and Adopted as of September
More informationCARLISLE HOME RULE CHARTER. ARTICLE I General Provisions
CARLISLE HOME RULE CHARTER We, the people of Carlisle, under the authority granted the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to adopt home rule charters and exercise the rights of local self-government,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice. Federal Circuit Rule 1
Rule 1. Scope of Rules; Title United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice Federal Circuit Rule 1 (a) Reference to District and Trial Courts and Agencies.
More informationShahid Qureshi v. Atty Gen USA
2002 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-30-2002 Shahid Qureshi v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 01-2558 Follow
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. SIERRA CLUB; and VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE,
USCA4 Appeal: 18-2095 Doc: 50 Filed: 01/16/2019 Pg: 1 of 8 No. 18-2095 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT SIERRA CLUB; and VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE, v. Petitioners, UNITED
More informationRULES OF PROCEDURE. For Applications & Appeals
Attachment A Resolution of adoption, 2009 KITSAP COUNTY OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER RULES OF PROCEDURE For Applications & Appeals Adopted June 22, 2009 BOCC Resolution No 116 2009 Note: Res No 116-2009
More informationThe Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside, State of California, ordains that this Ordinance is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 617 (AS AMENDED THROUGH 617.4) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 617 REGULATING UNDERGROUND TANK SYSTEMS CONTAINING HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES The Board of Supervisors
More informationCh. 41 MEDICAL ASSISTANCE APPEAL PROCEDURES 55 CHAPTER 41. MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDER APPEAL PROCEDURES GENERAL PROVISIONS
Ch. 41 MEDICAL ASSISTANCE APPEAL PROCEDURES 55 CHAPTER 41. MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDER APPEAL PROCEDURES Sec. 41.1. Scope. 41.2. Construction and application. 41.3. Definitions. 41.4. Amendments to regulation.
More informationDilapidated Building Ordinance Town of Corinth, Vermont
Dilapidated Building Ordinance Town of Corinth, Vermont I. Statutory Authority This ordinance is adopted by the Selectboard of the Town of Corinth under authority granted in 24 V.S.A. 2291 (13), (14),
More informationRULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE NOTICE
RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the following amendments to the Rules of Appellate Procedure were adopted to take effect on January 1, 2019. The amendments were approved
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 informationFILED :33 PM
MP6/DH7/jt2 10/10/2017 FILED 10-10-17 04:33 PM BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Investigation on the Commission s Own Motion into the Rates, Operations,
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 115,334 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JOSHUA P. OLGA, Appellant, STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 115,334 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS JOSHUA P. OLGA, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2017. Affirmed. Appeal from Sedgwick
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 13-0816 444444444444 EL PASO MARKETING, L.P., PETITIONER, v. WOLF HOLLOW I, L.P., RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION
More informationLA. REV. STAT. ANN. 9:
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. In this [Act]: (1) Arbitration organization means an association, agency, board, commission, or other entity that is neutral and initiates, sponsors, or administers an arbitration
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 informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #15-1219 Document #1609250 Filed: 04/18/2016 Page 1 of 16 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) UTILITY SOLID WASTE ACTIVITIES
More informationUniform Arbitration Act; Mediation or Arbitration of Trust Instruments; HB 2571
Uniform Arbitration Act; Mediation or Arbitration of Trust Instruments; HB 2571 HB 2571 repeals the Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA) and replaces it with the Uniform Arbitration Act of 2000 (or Revised Uniform
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 informationWATER CODE CHAPTER 7. ENFORCEMENT
WATER CODE CHAPTER 7. ENFORCEMENT SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 7.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter: (1) "Commission" means the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. (2) "Permit" includes
More informationRAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL HEARINGS SECTION
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL HEARINGS SECTION OIL AND GAS DOCKET NO. 02-0253872 ENFORCEMENT ACTION FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BY SAMURAI OPERATING CO., LLC (745042), AS
More informationRULES OF PROCEDURE FOR PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF PUYALLUP, WASHINGTON CHAPTER I: HEARINGS ON PERMIT APPLICATIONS
RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF PUYALLUP, WASHINGTON CHAPTER I: HEARINGS ON PERMIT APPLICATIONS Purpose These are intended to facilitate orderly open record
More informationRULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULE 2:9. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL
RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULE 2:9. MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL Rule 2:9-1. Control by Appellate Court of Proceedings Pending Appeal or Certification (a) Control
More informationCHAPTER 27 Amendments
CHAPTER 27 Amendments Section 27.1 Intent and Purpose Amendments or supplements shall be made hereto in the same manner as provided in the Zoning Act for the enactment of this Ordinance. Section 27.2 Initiation
More informationPROPOSAL FOR DECISION PROCEDURAL HISTORY
OIL & GAS DOCKET NO. 01-0249369 ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST SHWJ OIL & GAS CO., INC. (OPERATOR NO. 779245) FOR VIOLATIONS OF STATEWIDE RULES ON THE P. A. STYLES (03332) LEASE, WELL NOS. 1 AND 2, LULING-BRANYON
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 informationBYLAW NUMBER 11M2010
BEING A BYLAW OF THE CITY OF CALGARY TO DELEGATE CERTAIN POWERS, DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS RELATING TO THE AUTHORIZATION AND EXECUTION OF CERTAIN AGREEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE ENHANCEMENT, CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION
More informationThe Department shall administer the air quality program of the State. (1973, c. 821, s. 6; c. 1262, s. 23; 1977, c. 771, s. 4; 1987, c. 827, s. 204.
ARTICLE 21B. Air Pollution Control. 143-215.105. Declaration of policy; definitions. The declaration of public policy set forth in G.S. 143-211, the definitions in G.S. 143-212, and the definitions in
More informationLegalFormsForTexas.Com
Information or instructions: Motion & order to retain case on the docket 1. The following motion is required to prevent the case from being dismissed for lack of prosecution. Courts routinely dismiss cases
More informationDEPARTMENT OF WATER, COUNTY OF KAUAI RULES AND REGULATIONS
DEPARTMENT OF WATER, COUNTY OF KAUAI RULES AND REGULATIONS PART 1 RULES OF ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE SECTION I GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Authority. The rules herein are established pursuant to
More informationRAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL HEARINGS SECTION
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL HEARINGS SECTION OIL AND GAS DOCKET NO. 6E-0245779 ENFORCEMENT ACTION FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BY LONGVIEW DISPOSAL (508525), AS TO THE PETRO-WAX,
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ORDER DENYING REHEARING. (Issued July 19, 2018)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Kevin J. McIntyre, Chairman; Cheryl A. LaFleur, Neil Chatterjee, Robert F. Powelson, and Richard Glick. Constitution
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
Case 5:14-cv-00182-C Document 5 Filed 02/26/14 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (1 STAMPS BROTHERS OIL & GAS LLC, for itself and all others similarly
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 informationSeminole Appellate Court Rules of Appellate Procedure
Seminole Appellate Court Rules of Appellate Procedure 1 Table of Contents Rule 1. Scope of Rules; Definition; Title... 3 Rule 2. Suspension of Rules... 3 TITLE II. APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OR ORDER OF THE
More informationUniform Arbitration Act. Md. Courts & Judicial Proceedings COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TITLE 3. COURTS OF GENERAL JURISDICTION
Uniform Arbitration Act Md. Courts & Judicial Proceedings. 3-201 - 3-234 COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TITLE 3. COURTS OF GENERAL JURISDICTION JURISDICTION/SPECIAL CAUSES OF ACTION SUBTITLE 2. ARBITRATION
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC95954 JEFFREY CANNELLA and JOANNE CANNELLA, Petitioners, vs. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. PER CURIAM. [November 15, 2001] Upon consideration of the petitioners'
More informationSOUTHWEST INTERTRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
SOUTHWEST INTERTRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE Accepted and approved, as amended, by the Standing Administrative Committee on June 22, 2001 SOUTHWEST INTERTRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS RULES
More informationSaudi Center for Commercial Arbitration King Fahad Branch Rd, Al Mutamarat, Riyadh, KSA PO Box 3758, Riyadh Tel:
SCCA Arbitration Rules Shaaban 1437 - May 2016 Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration King Fahad Branch Rd, Al Mutamarat, Riyadh, KSA PO Box 3758, Riyadh 11481 Tel: 920003625 info@sadr.org www.sadr.org
More informationBEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA S E P INITIAL COMMENTS OF CENTERPOINT ENERGY RESOURCES CORP.
F I BEFORE THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA S E P IN RE: INQUIRY OF THE OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION TO EXAMINE PIPELINE SAFETY, PREVENTION OF EXCAVATION DAMAGE, AND PROCESSES RELATED TO ENFORCEMENT
More informationTHE PHI KAPPA TAU FRATERNITY CLAIM AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PLAN AND RULES
CLAIM AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PLAN AND RULES CLAIM AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION PLAN 1. Purpose and Construction The Plan is designed to provide for the quick, fair, accessible, and inexpensive resolution of
More informationSUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON SENATE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 2389
SESSION OF 2014 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON SENATE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 2389 As Recommended by Senate Committee on Judiciary Brief* Senate Sub. for HB 2389 would amend procedures for death penalty appeals
More informationFIRST READING: SECOND READING: PUBLISHED: PASSED: TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF WASTEWATER BY LAND APPLICATION
FIRST READING: SECOND READING: PUBLISHED: PASSED: TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF WASTEWATER BY LAND APPLICATION A RESOLUTION TO DELETE IN ITS ENTIRETY CHAPTER 13.30 ENTITLED TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF WASTEWATER
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 informationa. Collectively, this law and regulations adopted under this title are to be known as the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Clean Air Program (CAP).
TITLE 47. CLEAN AIR PROGRAM CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 47 M.P.T.L. ch. 1 1 1. Title a. Collectively, this law and regulations adopted under this title are to be known as the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal
More informationRevenue Chapter ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
Revenue Chapter 810-1-2 ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 810-1-2 PROCEDURES AND RULES FOR RULEMAKING, PUBLIC HEARINGS; DECLARATORY RULINGS TABLE OF CONTENTS 810-1-2-.01 Scope (Repealed
More informationPROPOSAL FOR DECISION PROCEDURAL HISTORY
OIL & GAS DOCKET NO. 03-0254795 ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST MASTERS OIL & GAS, LLC (OPERATOR NO. 532951) FOR VIOLATIONS OF STATEWIDE RULES ON THE RFR TRACT 199 LEASE, WELL NO. 1 (RRC NO. 122384), RED FISH
More informationPROPOSAL FOR DECISION PROCEDURAL HISTORY
OIL & GAS DOCKET NO. 08-0238073 ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST THE NEWTON CORP. (OPERATOR NO. 608609) FOR VIOLATIONS OF STATEWIDE RULES ON THE UNIVERSITY -V- (16836) LEASE, WELL NO. 3, THE UNIVERSITY -W- (16837)
More informationRULES OF PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COWLITZ COUNTY HEARINGS EXAMINER
RULES OF PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COWLITZ COUNTY HEARINGS EXAMINER INTRODUCTION The following Rules of Procedure have been adopted by the Cowlitz County Hearing Examiner. The examiner and deputy examiners
More informationPROPOSAL FOR DECISION PROCEDURAL HISTORY
OIL & GAS DOCKET NO. 08-0243759 ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST PINTAIL PRODUCTION CO., INC. (OPERATOR NO. 665709), FOR VIOLATIONS OF STATEWIDE RULES ON THE HIGHWAY UNIT LEASE, WELL NO. 1 (RRC NO. 098638),
More informationJanuary 2018 RULES OF THE ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
January 2018 RULES OF THE ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois One Prudential Plaza 130 East Randolph Drive,
More informationVideo Course Evaluation Form. Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of Course You Just Watched
Garden State CLE 21 Winthrop Road Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648 (609) 895-0046 fax- 609-895-1899 Atty2starz@aol.com! Video Course Evaluation Form Attorney Name Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of
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 informationRule 8.03 SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
Rule 8.03 SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF COURT OF APPEALS DECISION (a) Generally. A party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals may petition the Supreme Court for discretionary review under K.S.A. 20-3018.
More informationCertorari not Applied for. Released for Publication October 3, COUNSEL
NEW MEXICO MINING ASS'N V. NEW MEXICO MINING COMM'N, 1996-NMCA-098, 122 N.M. 332, 924 P.2d 741 NEW MEXICO MINING ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. NEW MEXICO MINING COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant/s.
Case :-cv-0-jak -JEM Document #:0 Filed 0// Page of Page ID UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JONATHAN BIRDT, Plaintiff/s, v. CHARLIE BECK, et al., Defendant/s. Case No. LA CV-0
More informationCase 2:05-cv TJW Document 212 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:05-cv-00195-TJW Document 212 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 5 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 information43 CFR Subtitle A ( Edition) SCOPE OF SUBPART; DEFINITIONS. SOURCE: 66 FR 67656, Dec. 31, 2001, unless otherwise noted. BIA.
4.200 this section is applicable, if the party requesting the information agrees under oath in writing: (1) Not to use or disclose the information except in the context of the proceeding conducted pursuant
More informationJoey D. Moya, Clerk New Mexico Supreme Court P.O. Box 848 Santa Fe, New Mexico (fax)
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS, RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR THE MAGISTRATE COURTS, RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR THE METROPOLITAN COURTS, AND RULES
More informationCONTRACT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
CONTRACT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING This Agreement is made and entered into this day of, 20, by and between the CITY OF ELKHART, INDIANA, ( CITY ), and. RECITALS: WHEREAS, the CITY desires
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D10-869
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2011 JOHNNY CRUZ CONTRERAS, Petitioner, v. Case No. 5D10-869 21ST CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, ETC., Respondent. / Opinion
More informationcag Doc#413 Filed 04/02/18 Entered 04/02/18 13:54:23 Main Document Pg 1 of 8
18-50085-cag Doc#413 Filed 04/02/18 Entered 04/02/18 13:54:23 Main Document Pg 1 of 8 IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED and DECREED that the below described is SO ORDERED. Dated: April 02, 2018. CRAIG A. GARGOTTA
More informationUS Code (Unofficial compilation from the Legal Information Institute) TITLE 9 ARBITRATION
US Code (Unofficial compilation from the Legal Information Institute) TITLE 9 ARBITRATION Please Note: This compilation of the US Code, current as of Jan. 4, 2012, has been prepared by the Legal Information
More information