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
In the 1920s—the time the deed at issue was executed—lessors commonly reserved a one-eighth royaltyinterest when they executed oil and gas leases. In addition to the estate misconception theory, the Court analyzed the “legacy of the one-eighth royalty.” The Texas Supreme Court recently released its opinion in Van Dyke v.
As was the case in 2012, this proposed amendment would also extend this direct payment requirement to any overriding royaltyinterests burdening the nonparticipating owner’s lease. Communications include firm news, insights, and events. In turn, the nonparticipating owner is responsible for its own lease burdens.
In exchange, the defendant agreed to transfer an overriding royaltyinterest in the subject prospect to the plaintiff in the event defendant acquired an interest in the prospect. In CLK Company , the parties entered into a confidentiality agreement whereby the plaintiff agreed to provide services to the defendant.
2023), in which it held that lessees owed royalties in excess of their gross proceeds, specifically “adding back” costs incurred by third-party buyers that were enumerated in the sales contract and subtracted from the sales price. The Texas Supreme Court recently released its opinion in Devon Energy Production Company, L.P.
denied) (“ Eagle I ”), TRO-X alleged that Eagle deprived TRO-X of its right to acquire certain mineral interests upon the sale of several leases in violation of their agreement. TRO-X lost that suit on appeal when the court of appeals found that TRO-X held equitable title to those interests and thus was not deprived of them.
denied) (“ Eagle I ”), TRO-X alleged that Eagle deprived TRO-X of its right to acquire certain mineral interests upon the sale of several leases in violation of their agreement. TRO-X lost that suit on appeal when the court of appeals found that TRO-X held equitable title to those interests and thus was not deprived of them.
Many LLC operating agreements provide for the issuance of additional membership interests or units, but may not provide for the issuance of a different class of membership interests or units. Other SMBs are organized as corporations under state law.
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