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
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.
For a copy of TxOGA’s brief, click on the following link Amicus Curiae Brief of TXOGA – Received: 10/16/2006 . The Miesch case, set for argument on February 13, is one of two related cases decided by the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals last year. Emerald Oil & Gas v. Exxon Corp., 13-99-757, 2005 WL 167051 (Tex.App.
The petitioners in the 2006 proceeding stated that they believed it was necessary for the succession to hire counsel to investigate and litigate these claims. The Succession of Mayo Romero.
In 2006, a group of landowners filed a class action lawsuit against the State of Louisiana through the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (“LDNR”) concerning the ownership of riverbanks in the Catahoula Basin. State of Louisiana through the Department of Natural Resources , 22-0625 (La. 1/1/23), So.
In the landmark oilfield remediation case Corbello v. Tackling this problem, the Louisiana Legislature in 2006 enacted La. After the LL&E I decision, the case went to trial in 2015. Louisiana Land and Exploration Co., 2020-00685 (La. 6/30/2021); — So. 3d — (“ LL&E II ”). [1]. 2d 686 (La. 30:29, known as Act 312.
2022-Ohio-901 , a consolidation of two cases previously decided by the Seventh District Court of Appeals, followed in the footsteps laid before it in its earlier decision in Gerrity v. The Court’s decision in Fonzi v. Brown , Slip Opinion No. Chervenak , 162 Ohio St.3d 3d 694, 2020-Ohio-6705.
The petitioners in the 2006 proceeding stated that they believed it was necessary for the succession to hire counsel to investigate and litigate these claims. The Succession of Mayo Romero. .
On July 1, 2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that Act 312 of 2006 (“Act 312”) is constitutional and reversed the district court’s judgment declaring Act 312 unconstitutional and unenforceable under La. V, § 16, La. I, § 4 and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Farms, Ltd. Exxon Mobil Corp. 2007-2371 (La.
The case relates to a 2006 oil spill which occurred at CITGO’s Lake Charles, Louisiana, refinery. This opinion from the Fifth Circuit is likely to have wide-ranging effects on CWA penalty cases. The CITGO case may continue to provide insight as it progresses on remand and any subsequent appeals. CITGO Petroleum Corp.,
2208 (2006). In 2006, the Supreme Court decided two consolidated cases involving the Corps’ authority to require dredge and fill permits under CWA § 404 for discharge into wetlands having only indirect connections to navigable waters. 2208 (2006). United States , 126 S. United States , and Carabell v.
Dillon As previously reported, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that Act 312 of 2006 is constitutional and reversed the district court’s judgment declaring Act 312 unconstitutional and unenforceable under La. By Anundra M. V, § 16, La. I, § 4 and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Farms, Ltd. Exxon Mobil Corp. 2007-2371 (La.
The opinion is available at 2006 WL 3333797 (E.D. 28, 2006). The suit named 11 individual defendants as representatives of two defendant classes, a “pipeline class” and an “exploration & production class.”
Thus, under the 2006 regulations, stormwater from Oil &Gas sites that only contained sediment was always exempt from permitting. The 2006 regulations were judicially challenged and eventually vacated. Alternatively, in some cases, individual permits may be needed. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. 3d 591 (9th Cir.
In January 2006, approximately 6 months before the servitude would expire for non-use, the mineral servitude owner conveyed the servitude to an affiliated business entity on the condition that it drill a well on the property by June 15, 2006. A well was spud on March 28, 2006.
United States , Case No. As detailed in our prior Sackett blog article , CWA jurisdictional decisions have been plagued by administrative rulings, guidance, and court opinions that attempted to implement the plurality opinion in the Supreme Court’s 2006 Rapanos v. In Lewis v. water[s] of the United States, (i.e.,
Background and Lease History In this lease termination case ( Pruett v. Following this purchase, River Land sought a declaratory judgment that the 1976 Lease had terminated, arguing that production ceased between 2006 and 2012 and alternatively that production had not occurred in paying quantities. River Land Holdings, LLC , No.
2006-G02, which requires a lessee “to show that a drilling rig was scheduled to commence operations prior to lease expiration and to have an approved plan (in this case , the EP) and APD.” In denying ATP’s request for an SOO, the MMS relied upon its Notice to Lessees No.
The judgment is the latest in a suit the EPA filed against CITGO under the Clean Water Act for a 2006 spill at the oil company’s St. In January 2016, Judge Haik retired from the bench and the case was transferred to Judge Drell. allowing an $81 million judgment against the oil company to stand. Charles refinery. CITGO Petroleum Corp.,
In the landmark oilfield remediation case Corbello v. Tackling this problem, the Louisiana Legislature in 2006 enacted La. After the LL&E I decision, the case went to trial in 2015. Louisiana Land and Exploration Co., 2020-00685 (La. 6/30/2021); — So. 3d — (“ LL&E II ”). [1]. 2d 686 (La. 30:29, known as Act 312.
The obvious intent of the SPA is to guaranty “that, when seamen provide information of dangerous situations to the Coast Guard, they will be free from the “debilitating threat of employment reprisals for publicly asserting company violations” of maritime statutes or regulations.” Riverboat Services of Indiana, Inc., 451 F.3d 3d 424 , 444 (7th Cir.
715 (2006), the scope of regulatory jurisdiction in the proposed rule is narrower than under the existing regulations. Based on this assertion, the agencies propose that all waters that meet the new regulatory definition of “tributary” are “waters of the United States” by rule, without the need for a case-specific analysis.
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.
1] In the case, a landowner sued its mineral lessees for: (1) failure to provide a recordable act evidencing the expiration of a mineral lease under Mineral Code articles 206-209 and (2) failure to pay royalties under Mineral Code articles 137-140. [2] Tauren Exploration, Inc. , 4] $242,029.26 6] $936,803.00 Rhymes ( jdrhymes@liskow.com ).
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. Factual and Procedural Background.
The tables turned again at the Texas Supreme Court, which ultimately held that the boundary stipulation was valid and that the defendants conclusively established their ratification defense, but the case is still ongoing. The case then proceeded to trial on Concho’s counterclaims.
The tables turned again at the Texas Supreme Court, which ultimately held that the boundary stipulation was valid and that the defendants conclusively established their ratification defense, but the case is still ongoing. The case then proceeded to trial on Concho’s counterclaims. Factual and Procedural Background.
ACT 312 BEFORE THE NEW LEGISLATION Act 312 of the 2006 legislative session was enacted in response to judicial decisions that awarded significant damages for remediation costs with no obligation for landowners to actually use such awards for cleanup work. Third, a limited admission precludes another plan hearing later in the case.
715 (2006), which was issued 17 years ago but was not uniformly applied due to Justice Kennedy’s use of the “significant nexus” test in his concurrence. Brief Overview of “Waters of the United States” The Supreme Court previously considered the scope of “waters of the United States” under the CWA in 2006 in Rapanos. 715, 739 (2006). [3]
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