CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 13-06-352-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2007

Endeavor Natural Gas, L.P., Acting Through Its General Partner, Eng Management, L.L.C., Formerly Known as Endeavor Natural Gas, L.L.C. v. Magnum Hunter Production, Inc., Prize Energy Resources, L.P., and Prize Operating Company

Endeavor Natural Gas, L.P. initiated a lawsuit against Magnum Hunter Production, Inc. and its affiliates, seeking to reclaim $766,472.72 in severance tax refunds and credits associated with oil and gas properties. The core of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of an Assignment and a subsequent Letter Agreement, specifically defining "expenses" and "revenues" related to the properties. Endeavor argued that the tax refunds constituted expenses, thus falling under the Letter Agreement which would entitle Endeavor to these funds. Conversely, Magnum Hunter asserted that these refunds were neither expenses nor revenues, meaning the broader terms of the Assignment, which favored Magnum Hunter, should govern. The trial court ultimately sided with Magnum Hunter, granting their motion for summary judgment and denying Endeavor's. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concurring that the severance tax refunds and credits did not fit the definitions of "expenses" or "revenues" within the Letter Agreement, thereby upholding that the Assignment's provisions, beneficial to Magnum Hunter, were applicable.

Contract DisputeSummary JudgmentOil and GasSeverance TaxTax RefundsContract InterpretationLegal DefinitionsTexas LawAppellate ReviewProperty Conveyance
References
41
Case No. Nos. 01-04-01277-CV to 01-04-01287-CV; 01-04-01326-CV to 01-04-01333-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2006

Jim Wells County v. EL PASO PRODUCTION OIL

This case involves multiple Texas counties and school districts (Taxing Units) alleging fraud and conspiracy against numerous oil and gas companies (Oil Companies). The Taxing Units claimed the Oil Companies undervalued oil and gas reserves for ad valorem tax purposes through various manipulative schemes, leading to underpayment of taxes. The trial court dismissed the lawsuits due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, asserting that the Taxing Units failed to exhaust administrative remedies available under the Texas Tax Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the Tax Code provides a comprehensive and exclusive regulatory scheme for addressing property appraisal disputes, including those involving alleged fraud, through the Appraisal Review Board, thereby divesting district courts of original jurisdiction.

Property TaxAd Valorem TaxOil & GasFraudConspiracyUndervaluationExclusive JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesAppraisal Review BoardTax Code
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Texas Illinois Natural Gas Pipeline Co.

Magnolia Petroleum Company initiated an action against Texas Illinois Natural Gas Pipeline Company, seeking injunctive relief, a declaration of rights, and money damages. The controversy stemmed from the Federal Power Commission's (FPC) assertion of jurisdiction over natural gas producers and gatherers following the Supreme Court's decision in Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin. Magnolia sought to terminate its contracts based on FPC orders, while Texas Illinois filed a complaint with the FPC, arguing Magnolia was a regulated 'natural gas company'. The District Court determined it lacked jurisdiction over the declaratory relief concerning the FPC orders' validity, citing the need for exhaustion of administrative remedies. However, it retained jurisdiction over the claim for money damages and the contractual dispute regarding gas withdrawals for repressuring. Consequently, the court denied Magnolia's request for injunctive relief against Texas Illinois's FPC proceeding and partially granted and partially denied the motion to dismiss.

JurisdictionNatural Gas ActFederal Power CommissionContract TerminationDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefPrimary JurisdictionAdministrative LawGas SalesRepressuring Operations
References
11
Case No. 01–04–01277–CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2006

Zapata County and Zapata Independent School District v. Conocophillips Company on Its Own Behalf and as Successor–by–merger to Conoco Inc. (f/K/A Continental Oil Company, Inc.) Brandywine Industrial Gas, Inc. Phillips Petroleum Company El Paso Production Oil and Gas Company

This opinion consolidates 19 separate suits filed by various Texas counties and school districts (Taxing Units) against numerous oil and gas companies (Oil Companies). The Taxing Units alleged fraud and conspiracy to defraud through schemes to undervalue oil and gas reserves for ad valorem tax purposes, leading to underpayment of taxes. The trial courts granted the Oil Companies' pleas to the jurisdiction, dismissing the cases because the Taxing Units failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Texas Tax Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the Tax Code provides the exclusive means for addressing such claims, establishing a pervasive regulatory scheme through the Appraisal Review Board, and offering remedies like challenging valuations or back-appraising omitted property. The court held that the Taxing Units cannot bypass the comprehensive statutory scheme by recharacterizing tax disputes as common-law fraud cases.

Ad Valorem TaxProperty ValuationTax FraudAdministrative RemediesExclusive JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeAppraisal Review BoardOil and Gas TaxationMineral InterestsExhaustion of Remedies
References
14
Case No. 01-36709-SAF-7, 01-36900-SAF-11, 01-36736-SAF-11, 01-36904-SAF-7, Adversary No. 03-3564
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2004

In Re Aurora Natural Gas, LLC

Edge Petroleum Operating Co., Inc. (Edge) sued Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C. (Duke), and several debtor entities (Aurora, ANG Holdings, GPR, Golden Prairie) in bankruptcy court, seeking payment for natural gas sold. Edge claimed a perfected security interest in the gas and its proceeds under Texas Business and Commerce Code § 9.343, alleging Duke was liable for payment or conversion. Duke and the debtors moved for summary judgment, arguing Edge lacked a security interest or conversion claim and that the issue of payment was subject to a separate adversary proceeding. The court found Edge had a perfected security interest in the gas and proceeds, but genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether Duke purchased the gas in the ordinary course of business and if payment had been made. Ultimately, the court denied Edge's motion for summary judgment, granted Duke's and the debtors' motions, and dismissed the adversary proceeding, concluding that Edge could not maintain a conversion claim and must pursue its secured claim in the debtors' bankruptcy cases if Duke had paid.

BankruptcySecurity InterestNatural GasProceedsConversionSummary JudgmentTexas Business and Commerce CodeUCC Article 9Automatic StayDebtor-Creditor
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

South Texas Natural Gas Gathering Co. v. Guerra

This personal injury suit arose when David Guerra was injured by a bulldozer striking a gas transmission line in Hidalgo County, Texas. The jury found the defendant, South Texas Natural Gas Gathering Company, negligent on five grounds for failing to mark its pipeline and warn workers. The trial court rendered judgment awarding damages to Guerra, his employer South Texas Cattle Management Corporation, and N. H. Roane, Contractor, Inc., and denied the Gas Company's third-party claims. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, with the court rejecting arguments regarding 'extraordinary use' of the land, excessive damages, and issues concerning jury strikes and evidence.

Personal InjuryGas Pipeline AccidentNegligenceDamagesProximate CauseExtraordinary Use of LandWarning SignsDuty to WarnJury FindingsAppellate Review
References
22
Case No. 13-10-00439-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2012

El Paso Production Oil & Gas USA L. P. N/K/A El Paso E&P Company, L. P. v. Kenneth Sellers

This appeal concerns a title dispute over a mineral estate in Hidalgo County, Texas. Appellant El Paso Production Oil & Gas USA, L.P. challenged the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment to Appellee Kenneth Sellers. Sellers claimed vested record title to mineral interests in Lots 9 and 12, seeking an accounting of oil and gas proceeds. El Paso contended that Sellers's chain of title was broken by competing claims and prior conveyances. The appellate court found that neither party definitively proved or disproved superior title, indicating genuine issues of material fact remained. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Title disputeMineral rightsOil and gas lawSummary judgment reviewAppellate procedureTexas property lawReal estate titleChain of titleHidalgo CountyReversal
References
14
Case No. 04-15-00118-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2015

Shirley Adams, Charlene Burgess, Willie Mae Herbst Jasik, William Albert Herbst, Helen Herbst and R. May Oil & Gas Company, Ltd. v. Murphy Exploration & Production Co.-USA, a Delaware Corporation

An offset well is a “well drilled on one tract of land to prevent the drainage of oil or gas to an adjoining tract of land, on which a well is being drilled or is already in production.” Williams & Meyers’ Manual of Oil and Gas Terms, p. 718 (1994 ed.) (emphasis added). Paragraph 25 of the Herbst leases (“Leases”) provides that, if a well is drilled on adjacent lands and within 467 feet of the leased premises, the lessee must either drill an offset well, release sufficient acreage adjacent to the draining well to allow the Lessor to drill an offset well, or pay compensatory royalty. Murphy drilled a well on the Leases over 2,100 feet from the draining well and contends it is an “offset well” under Paragraph 25. Such a well does not qualify as an offset well under Paragraph 25. Murphy argues that a well drilled anywhere on the leased premises satisfies its obligation under Paragraph 25, as long as the well is completed in the same formation as the draining well. This argument deprives the word “offset” of any meaning and ignores the plain language and intent of Paragraph 25, which is to protect the leased premises from drainage. Murphy also argues that the well on the adjacent land is not in fact draining the leased premises. There is no evidence in the record to support that contention. More to the point, Paragraph 25 does not require the Lessor to prove that the well is draining the leased premises. The very purpose of Paragraph 25 is to eliminate the need for that proof. The trial court erred in awarding Murphy attorneys’ fees on appeal, based on its counterclaim for declaratory judgment. A request for declaratory judgment “tacked onto” a breach of contract claim cannot be a basis for a fee award. MBM Fin. Corp. v. Woodlands Operating Co., L.P., 292 S.W.3d 660, 669-70 (Tex. 2009).

Oil and GasLease DisputeOffset WellContract InterpretationSummary JudgmentAttorney's FeesDrainageTexas LawAppellate ProcedureMineral Rights
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soto v. El Paso Natural Gas Co.

Emma Soto sued her employer, El Paso Natural Gas Co. (EPNG), for sex discrimination, sexual harassment, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for EPNG. Soto appealed, arguing the lower court misapplied limitations periods and misinterpreted sexual harassment and employer liability for employee torts. The appellate court reviewed the "totality of circumstances" and found ample evidence for a hostile work environment, including overtly sexual acts and gender-based harassment. It also found fact questions regarding EPNG's notice and remedial actions, and whether Trujillo's assault was within the scope of employment. The court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Sexual harassmentHostile work environmentSex discriminationEmployer liabilityIntentional infliction of emotional distressAssaultSummary judgment appealTexas Human Rights ActQuid pro quo harassmentScope of employment
References
22
Case No. 01-21-00285-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2023

GE Oil & Gas Pressure Control, L.P. v. Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc.

This is an insurance subrogation case where Gemini Insurance Company, on behalf of its insured Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. (Carrizo), sued GE Oil & Gas Pressure Control, L.P. (GE) for damages from a well blowout. Carrizo alleged negligence, breach of contract, product liability, and breach of warranty. GE counterclaimed for Carrizo's negligence and indemnification. A jury found both parties negligent, but the trial court later disregarded Carrizo's negligence finding and awarded Carrizo over $2.5 million. On appeal, GE challenged Carrizo's standing, the disregard of the jury's verdict, and the enforceability of indemnity provisions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding Carrizo had standing, GE failed to provide necessary expert testimony for Carrizo's negligence, and the indemnity clauses were unenforceable due to lack of signatory authority.

Oil and GasWell BlowoutNegligenceBreach of ContractProduct LiabilityBreach of WarrantyInsurance SubrogationIndemnity ClauseFair Notice RuleExpress Negligence
References
71
Showing 1-10 of 2,444 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational