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
The Eastland Court of Appeals addressed, for the first time, the interpretation of a double-fraction royalty reservation in light of Van Dyke. The case ( Boren Descendants v. centered on whether a 1933 deed reserved a floating 1/4 royaltyinterest or a fixed 1/32 interest. Fasken Oil & Ranch, Ltd. ,
The Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in a case that could substantially clarify, or even fundamentally reshape, the characterization and ownership of underground storage rights in Texas. The case was Myers-Woodward v. The case remains pending before the Texas Supreme Court on petition for review.
The Eagle II case is the second case that arose between TRO-X, L.P. (“TRO-X”) Eastland 2013, pet. 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. 19, 2021) (“ Eagle II ”). TRO-X, L.P. ,
Recently, when there was talk about Houston-based ATP Oil and Gas’ (ATP) legal problems, it was inevitably about its bankruptcy and its effort to bring the overriding royaltyinterests it had conveyed back into the bankrupt estate as debt instruments. See United States v. ATP Oil & Gas Corp. , 955 F.Supp.2d 2d 616 (E.D.
The Eagle II case is the second case that arose between TRO-X, L.P. (“TRO-X”) Eastland 2013, pet. 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. 19, 2021) (“ Eagle II ”). TRO-X, L.P. ,
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