This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Another case interpreting a royalty reservation in an old conveyance has been decided by the 11th Court of Appeals in Eastland: Boren Descendants and Mabee Descendants v. The deed reserves “an undivided one-fourth (1/4th) of the usual one eighth (18th) royalty.” Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. , Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd.
With the prevalence of cases involving royalty disputes in Texas, the state’s Supreme Court has never hesitated to address these issues. But the Court’s sporadic holdings regarding royalty clauses, each so specific to the particular language of the lease, have left lessees on unsteady footing. Heritage Resources , 939 S.W.2d
While the Court is no stranger to interpreting (and often muddling) the familiar royalty clause interpretation questions surrounding the first issue, in a case of first impression, the Court also analyzed the breadth of a lease’s free-use clause. after deductions), resulting in lower royalty payments for the royalty owners.
While the Court is no stranger to interpreting (and often muddling) the familiar royalty clause interpretation questions surrounding the first issue, in a case of first impression, the Court also analyzed the breadth of a lease’s free-use clause. after deductions), resulting in lower royalty payments for the royalty owners.
Free-Use Clause and Further Interprets Conflicting Royalty Clause Provisions The Texas Supreme Court recently issued its anticipated decision in BlueStone Natural Resources II, LLC v. For almost a decade, the original lessee to the agreements never subtracted post-production costs from the royalty owners’ royalty payments.
In this case, CT Land and Cattle and Cattle Co., In this case, CT Land and Cattle and Cattle Co., In 2019, CT Land invoked the burial provision in the mineral lease and sued Unitex for breach of the lease and for declaratory relief when Unitex refused to comply. —Amarillo June 28, 2024, pet.
However, if the current trend continues, the Haynesville could approach its prior peak production average in early 2019. for a one-fourth (1/4) mineral royalty and as much as ten thousand ($10,000) dollars per acre bonus royalty.” In that case, the plaintiff-lessors argued, the lease should be rescinded based on their error.
For nearly three years, unit operators in Louisiana have waited to see whether the Western District of Louisiana would change course or double down on its March 2019 decision in Johnson v. Earlier information about this case can be found here. *In Chesapeake. Johnson Ruling Reversing Prior PPC Ruling.
Recently, the Nigerian government demanded more than $60 billion in back royalties under a production sharing agreement with the supermajors operating in the country. million BPD as of November 2019. It will fall to courts to rule on this case, and it will take quite a while. How did this happen?
On March 21, 2019, the U.S. 30:10 was inapplicable to the case because the costs outlined in the statute comprised only pre-production and production costs. 30:10] simply means that, for all of this, he is given the equivalent of a “no cost” royalty clause on production proceeds. 1] See 2019 WL 1301985 (W.D. 3] See id. [4]
Alaska 2019) where the court found that OCSLA did not give the President specific authority to revoke a prior President’s withdrawal of OCS lands from disposition. Louisiana v. 2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK, 2021 WL 2154963 (W.D. June 15, 2021). The Court discussed League of Conservation Voters v. Trump , 363 F. 3d 1013 (D. at 38-40. (2)
Alaska 2019) where the court found that OCSLA did not give the President specific authority to revoke a prior President’s withdrawal of OCS lands from disposition. Louisiana v. 2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK, 2021 WL 2154963 (W.D. June 15, 2021). The Court discussed League of Conservation Voters v. Trump , 363 F. 3d 1013 (D. at 38-40. (2)
Alaska 2019) where the court found that OCSLA did not give the President specific authority to revoke a prior President’s withdrawal of OCS lands from disposition. Louisiana v. 2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK, 2021 WL 2154963 (W.D. June 15, 2021). The Court discussed League of Conservation Voters v. Trump , 363 F. 3d 1013 (D. at 38-40. (2)
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content