law oil and gas minerals
RECENT TEXAS SUPREME COURT OPINIONS - OIL AND GAS LITIGATION
Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Sheppard, No. 06-0845 (Tex. Nov. 21, 2008) Brister)(oil and gas lease)
WAGNER & BROWN, LTD. ET AL. v. JANE TURNER SHEPPARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS INDEPENDENT
EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF SYBIL TURNER, DECEASED; from Upshur County; 6th district
(06-05-00023-CV, 198 SW3d 369, 07-14-06)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment, renders judgment in part, and remands the case to the
trial court.
Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court.
(Justice Willett not sitting)
Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. v. Garza Energy Trust, No. 05-0466 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Hecht)
(oil and gas, trespass, rule of capture)
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion.
Justice Johnson delivered an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Chief Justice
Jefferson joined, and in Part I of which Justice Medina joined.
(Judge Tracy Christopher and Justice Robert Pemberton sitting by appointment pursuant to section 22.005
of the Texas Government Code) (Justice O'Neill and Justice Wainwright not sitting)
Kerlin v. Sauceda, No. 05-0653 (Tex. Oct. 10, 2008)(subst op. by O'Neill) (oil and gas law, statute of
limitations not tolled)
Kerlin v. Sauceda, No. 05-0653 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(O'Neill) (oil and gas royalties, claims time-barred)
Justice Brister delivered a concurring opinion, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Medina, and Justice Willett
joined.
Bowden v. Phillips Petroleum Co., No. 03-0824 (Tex. Feb. 15, 2008)(Justice Wainwright)
(class action de-certification, royalty owners, interlocutory appeal) (Justice Brister not sitting)
COURT OF APPEALS CASES IN WHICH THE SUPREME COURT DENIED
REVIEW
08-0324
DSTJ, L.L.P., SUCCESSOR TO DSTJ CORPORATION; AND MILESTONE OPERATING, INC. v. M & M
RESOURCES, INC.; ENERGY LAND RESOURCES A/K/A ENERGY LAND RESOURCES LAND SERVICES;
A.M. PHELAN, III; AND DANIEL PHELAN; from Jefferson County; 9th district (09-07-00559-CV, ___ SW3d
___, 03-13-08) (accelerated appeal of an order modifying a temporary injunction, competing claims to
ownership of mineral leases)
This is an accelerated appeal of an order modifying a temporary injunction. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
Ann. § 51.014(a)(4) (Vernon Supp. 2007). In the trial court, M & M Resources, Inc. and DSTJ, L.L.P. assert
competing claims to ownership of mineral leases on a 210.5 acre tract in the Bennett Blackman Survey in
Jefferson County, Texas. (1) M & M obtained a temporary injunction to restrain operations on the tract which
includes the Quail No. 1 Well and the Quail No. 2 Well in the Frio 2 formation. See DSTJ, L.L.P. v. M & M
Resources, Inc., No. 09-06-073 CV, 2006 WL 1360509, *1 (Tex. App.--Beaumont May 18, 2006, no pet.).
After we affirmed the granting of the temporary injunction, the trial court modified the injunction to prohibit the
appellants from performing operations in the Frio 2 with the Quail No. 3 Well on the adjacent Gilliland tract.
(2) In two issues, the appellants, DSTJ and Milestone Operating, Inc., contend: (1) the trial court abused its
discretion by modifying the existing temporary restraining order to prohibit oil and gas exploration,
operations, and production on the Gilliland Survey; and (2) that the appellees, M & M, Energy Land
Resources, A.M. Phelan, III, and Daniel Phelan, failed to establish a probable right to recovery and a
probable, imminent, and irreparable injury. We affirm the trial court's order modifying the temporary injunction.
08-0326
KEN E. MACKEY v. GREAT LAKES INVESTMENT, INC. AND GREAT LAKES INTERESTS, INC.; from Zapata
County; 4th district (04-06-00277-CV, 255 SW3d 243, 03-12-08)(competing claims to royalty payments
under an oil and gas lease.)
Great Lakes Investments, Inc./Great Lakes Interests, Inc. and Ken Mackey assert competing claims to royalty
payments under an oil and gas lease. After the trial court determined Great Lakes Investments, Inc./Great
Lakes Interests, Inc. owned the disputed royalty payments, Mackey filed this appeal claiming that the trial
court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Great Lakes Investments, Inc./Great Lakes Interests,
Inc. (1) The Madrid and Laredo Trading Company, Ltd., an intervenor in the underlying lawsuit, also appeals,
claiming the trial court's judgment is not a final appealable judgment because unresolved matters remain
pending in the trial court between Madrid and Great Lakes Investments, Inc./Great Lakes Interests, Inc. We
conclude the trial court's judgment is a final appealable judgment and affirm the trial court's judgment.
08-0319
VERITAS ENERGY, LLC v. BRAYTON OPERATING CORP., ET AL.; from Jackson County; 13th district
(13-06-00061-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 02-14-08)(oil and gas law, mineral lease termination dispute)
This is a lease termination dispute over a 275 acre mineral lease in Jackson County, Texas. By seven issues,
appellant, Veritas Energy, LLC (Veritas), contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in
favor of appellees, Sundown Energy, Inc. (Sundown), and Brayton Operating Corporation and the Selected
Non-Operating Interest Owners (Brayton). (1) We reverse and remand in part and affirm in part.
The trial court's order is reversed and remanded in part and affirmed in part. Specifically, summary judgment
was improper on the claims against defendants, Tauber Exploration & Production Co. and Carnes Natural
Gas, Ltd. Thus, we reverse the portion of the order granting summary judgment in favor of Tauber
Exploration & Production Co. and Carnes Natural Gas, Ltd. and remand the case to the trial court for further
proceedings. The remainder of the trial court's judgment is affirmed.
07-0838
PETRO PRO, LTD., A TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND L & R ENERGY CORPORATION v. NANCY
WILSON BRISCOE, JUDITH BROCK SEITZ, AND CAROLYN ROGERS, UPLAND RESOURCES, INC., KCS
RESOURCES, INC., GREAT LAKES ENERGY PARTNERS, L.L.C. AND STEVE ZEMKOSKI; from Roberts
County; 7th district (07-05-00327-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 06-14-07, pet. denied June 2008) [separate opinion in
07-05-0327-CV] 2 petitions (oil and gas law, assignment of interest, declaration of rights)
08-0196
ROMEO LONGORIA, ET AL. v. EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION, ET AL.; from Brooks County; 4th district
(04-06-00474-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 01-30-08, pet. denied May 2008)
(Justice O'Neill and Justice Green not sitting) (mineral estate, adverse possession)
Romeo Longoria and forty-one other appellants ("the Longorias") contend their ancestor, Jose M. Longoria,
acquired an undivided one-half interest in 9200 acres of land in Brooks County by adverse possession
before the mineral estate was severed from the surface. The Longorias have sued eleven energy companies
("the energy company defendants") and Hector and Gloria Lopez, who allegedly hold or have held record
title to the minerals in part of the 9200 acres. In this suit, the Longorias seek to establish title to an undivided
one-half of the mineral estate claimed by the defendants, a declaration removing the cloud on the Longorias'
title, an accounting of the mineral production and income from such property and damages for conversion of
their share of the net production for minerals extracted from the property since limitations title was perfected.
The trial court dismissed the Longorias' suit for failing to join "absent mineral interest owners" as parties. The
Longorias appeal, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the case. We affirm.