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
This case arises from a fatal accident on an icy, unlit stretch of highway near Amarillo, Texas. The Texas Supreme Court reviewed and reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case for a new trial. A wrongful death case is no different in this regard. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.001 (12). Saenz , 925 S.W.2d
By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site. 5, 2023). [2] Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
The first five Plaquemines Parish Coastal Zone Management Act (“CZMA”) cases to be set for trial have been chosen. In the other sixteen Plaquemines Parish CZMA cases, the parties have agreed to suspend all discovery deadlines whilethey prepare Rozel , ConocoPhillips , Hilcorp , Equitable , and Helis for trial. Parish of Plaquemines v.
The first memo announced the reversal of OSHA’s April 10, 2020 policy that limited the requirement to track on-the-job cases of COVID-19 to health-care facilities, emergency response providers, and corrections facilities. The agency cautioned that recording a COVID-19 case does not necessarily mean the employer violated an OSHA standard.
Flint 1 applied to the case at hand, barring claimants from recovering economic damages for deferred oil production. This case required a complex analysis of Robins Dry Dock due to separate entities, under claimants’ parent company, owning the pipeline, and leasing the wells and platforms. On October 30, 2023, the U.S. 303 (1927).
Part I of this blog covers some basics about state and federal courts, explaining why the jurisdictional question of where a case will be decided is often contested. Federal Court “Removal” is the name for the process when a party transfers a case originally filed in a state court to a federal court. Only the court is different.
Plaintiffs opposed the motion and submitted, in part, excerpts from the depositions of Mr. Steib’s co-workers and six individuals deposed in unrelated asbestos cases that Plaintiffs argued established Mr. Steib’s exposure. Marathon later joined Parsons’s motion. This article addresses Plaintiffs’ substantive arguments.
In doing so, the Court reaffirmed the employment-at-will doctrine, and its decision will likely be cited in many other types of employment law cases, including those asserting wrongful termination claims. It will also be useful to employers in a variety of other cases where their personnel decisions are challenged.
On September 2, 2016, the Texas Supreme Court agreed to review three oil and gas cases involving issues pertinent to the industry and land and mineral owners. is another top-lease case from the Amarillo Court of Appeals. BP America Production Company v. Red Deer Resources, LLC In BP America Production Company v. Laddex, Ltd.
Additionally, a motion to recuse was filed to remove Justice Crain from the case. Justice Crain had been previously removed from a case involving the Talbot, Carmouche, and Marcello law firm; however, in this case, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied Plaintiff’s request, allowing Justice Crain to consider the writ application.
By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney-client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site. United States Department of the Interior , 1:21-cv-11172-IT).
This case was handled by Paul Adkins of Liskow’s Baton Rouge office. By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site.
This case was handled by Paul Adkins of Liskow’s Baton Rouge office. By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site.
1] In doing so, the Third Circuit affirmed the constitutional and statutory authority of the Tax Commission to correct assessment that, as in this case, did not properly reflect the fair market value of the pipeline system. Contact Cheryl Kornick or Robert Angelico for more information. The Third Circuit rejected that argument as well.
Under this doctrine, “a court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction and dismiss a case that is otherwise properly before it so that the case can be adjudicated in another forum.” This is the analysis the Court applied in the instant case of Noble House LLC v. The case is Noble House, L.L.C. May 1, 2023).
In May 2018, oil and gas industry defendants removed a docket of 42 cases alleging violations of Louisiana’s coastal zone management laws to federal court in the Eastern and Western Districts of Louisiana (“CZM cases”). Defendants removed Auster (and 11 other Western District CZM cases) based on federal officer jurisdiction (28 U.S.C.
In two companion cases, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided whether a federal district court could properly exercise jurisdiction over climate change suits brought against energy companies by cities and counties in California. In City of Oakland et al. BP PLC et al. 1442(a)(1).
Now the case is before the Texas Supreme Court, with a recently submitted amicus brief containing the argument that could turn the tides back in the lessees’ favor. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state regarding a particular matter.
Instead, BSEE decided to retain the current framework, under which BSEE’s position is that it may issue decommissioning orders to any or all jointly and severally liable parties in the chain of title on a case-by-case basis. BSEE’s final rule can be found at 88 Fed. 23569 (April 18, 2023).
With Louisiana’s case dismissed, the TED requirements for shrimp skimmer trawl vessels 40 feet and greater in length are likely to remain in place. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state regarding a particular matter.
One of the Facility Defendants removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, arguing that complete diversity existed between all properly joined defendants and the Plaintiffs. 1] The Court found that remand was necessary in the case at issue because of the uncertainty of whether discretionary immunity under La.
Plaintiffs opposed the motion and submitted, in part, excerpts from the depositions of Mr. Steib’s co-workers and six individuals deposed in unrelated asbestos cases that Plaintiffs argued established Mr. Steib’s exposure. Marathon later joined Parsons’s motion. This article addresses Plaintiffs’ substantive arguments.
Justiss”) entered into a turnkey drilling contract to drill a deep oil well using intermediate casing purchased from Oil Country Tubular Co. The casing pipe was API certified to a particular pressure and one of the Defendants’ owners represented to Justiss that the pipe was fit for its intended use. Justiss Oil Company, Inc.
Indeed, the court analyzed several recent decisions from Louisiana’s First , Second , and Third Circuits, each of which concluded that the subsequent purchaser doctrine applies in cases involving mineral leases. These decisions uniformly held that, under the reasoning of Eagle Pipe & Supply, Inc. Amerada Hess Corp.
In a decision issued today, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal issued the first appellate court opinion addressing the procedure for approval of settlements in cases governed by Act 312 (La. Having no objection to settlement in this case, the trial court correctly approved the settlement. Riceland Petroleum Corp.,
Plaintiffs argued for the application of the Jazz Casino and Lowther cases, in which the Court held that there was no discretion required to appropriate funds for judgments on overpaid taxes and firefighters’ back wages, respectively. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
As was the case in 2012, this proposed amendment would also extend this direct payment requirement to any overriding royalty interests burdening the nonparticipating owner’s lease. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state regarding a particular matter.
In the landmark oilfield remediation case Corbello v. After the LL&E I decision, the case went to trial in 2015. The error was LL&E I’s holding that in cases without an express contractual restoration provision, “excess remediation damages were allowed under Act 312.” Louisiana Land and Exploration Co., 2020-00685 (La.
That case is one of forty-two Coastal Zone Management Act (“CZMA”) cases that were removed to Federal court in May 2018. The cases were removed to Federal court by Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Riverwood Production Co., 1442 (the federal officer removal statute) and 28 U.S.C.
Together, these developments will undoubtedly lead to more litigation and a higher cost of doing business on the Outer Continental Shelf. The number of civil penalty cases has risen gradually since 2009, with a sharp increase over 2013-2015. The average civil penalty amount per case has also grown, especially in the last two years.
Additionally, a motion to recuse was filed to remove Justice Crain from the case. Justice Crain had been previously removed from a case involving the Talbot, Carmouche, and Marcello law firm; however, in this case, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied Plaintiff’s request, allowing Justice Crain to consider the writ application.
a case concerning Texas partnership law. By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site. Enterprise Products Partners, L.P. ,
By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site.
The remedies provided for failure to pay or provide reasonable grounds for nonpayment largely mimic the damages provisions of the Mineral Code, with the notable exception that the bill does not include the Mineral Code’s express aversion to dissolution of the lease in a case involving a failure to pay royalties.
The final rule additionally does not clarify the phrase “relatively permanent” in the rule, signaling that such decisions will likely be made on a case-by-case basis by the local Army Corps district. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
Procedural History The case was originally tried in a forty-one day bench trial by Judge John P. This raises a dire warning to defendants in cases involving subrogated claims. 2607(d)(2)(B), limited its liability in the case to the same extent as Frescati’s (which had been limited to approximately $45 million).
In support of that notion, the Court cited the 1957 Texas Supreme Court case Garrett v. Another possible example, though not noted by the Court, can be seen in a case currently pending before the Eastland Court of Appeals: PetroLegacy Energy II, LLC v. Dils Co. , 2d 904 (Tex. Element Petroleum Props., 11-21-00103-CV (Tex.
The Third Circuit’s opinion in this case is the culmination of a year-and-a-half-long discovery dispute. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state regarding a particular matter. 6/28/23), –So. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
The Litel case began as a legacy lawsuit, in which Pioneer Natural Resources, Inc. Thereafter, the LDNR intervened in the Litel case, seeking recovery of emergency costs from Pioneer and Gary. The OSRL defines “responsible party” as “the operator of record. who last operated the property. Lyon Well #1. with stopping the leak.
By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site.
By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
This morning I attended oral argument at the United States Supreme Court in the maritime case of Dutra Group v. 1] The question in the case is whether a Jones Act seaman may recover punitive damages on an unseaworthiness claim. Batterton. [1] The author of the key Townsend opinion, Justice Thomas, had no questions for either side. [1]
LP, and New Dominion, LLC moved to dismiss the case on several grounds. In this case, the court noted that the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (“OCC”) is vested with exclusive authority to regulate injection/disposal wells. Second, the court dismissed the case under the “primary jurisdiction” doctrine.
Earlier information about this case can be found here. *In By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site.
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.
98 
Let's personalize your content