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. 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. 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. 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. 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
Case No. 07-17-00456-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2020

Jones Energy, Inc. and Jones Energy Holdings, LLC v. Pima Oil and Gas, L.L.C.

The case involves a dispute over an Overriding Royalty Interest (ORRI) in oil and gas production from the Gracie 117-1H well in Hemphill County, Texas. Pima Oil and Gas, L.L.C. (assignee) sued Jones Energy, Inc. and Jones Energy Holdings, LLC (operator, assignor's successor) for failing to pay ORRI on production from the horizontal well. The core issue was the interpretation of an "Assignment of Overriding Royalty Interest" and a related "Retainer Agreement," specifically whether an exception clause excluded production from a particular formation interval (Granite Wash A interval) or only from existing vertical wellbores. The trial court granted summary judgment to Pima. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas reversed this decision, ruling that the ORRI did not burden production from the A interval of the Granite Wash formation. The appellate court rendered judgment that the ORRI does not apply to the A interval production and a "take nothing" judgment for Pima's monetary claims, while remanding for a determination of production from other intervals.

Contract InterpretationOverriding Royalty InterestOil and Gas LeaseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewGrammatical InterpretationProducing ZonesHorizontal WellsMineral RightsTexas Law
References
17
Case No. 18-0656
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2019

Creative Oil & Gas Operating, Llc v. Lona Hills Ranch, Llc

This case concerns the application of the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) to counterclaims in an oil and gas lease dispute. Petitioners, Creative Oil & Gas, LLC and Creative Oil & Gas Operating, LLC, filed counterclaims against Respondent, Lona Hills Ranch, LLC, alleging false communications to third parties about lease termination and breach of contract by initiating litigation without proper notice. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed in part and reversed in part the appellate court's judgment. The Court ruled that private business communications about a single well's production were not matters of public concern under the TCPA's free speech provision. However, the Operator's counterclaim regarding the Ranch's legal filings fell under the TCPA's right to petition but was dismissed as the Operator was not a party to the lease.

Texas Citizens Participation ActTCPAAnti-SLAPPOil and GasLease DisputeCounterclaimsFree SpeechRight to PetitionPublic ConcernPrivate Communications
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2009

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc. and Townsend Oil Corporation on behalf of ten claimants, alleging sexual harassment, constructive discharge, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendants moved to compel the production of claimants' medical and mental health records. The court addressed the psychotherapist-patient privilege, finding that Claimant #2, who saw mental health professionals, did not waive her privilege because she only asserted a "garden variety" emotional distress claim and did not intend to use privileged communications at trial. The court clarified that the psychotherapist-patient privilege does not extend to medical, non-mental health providers. For seven claimants, including the Charging Party and Claimant #2, the court ordered the disclosure of medical records relevant to emotional distress, limiting the scope to one year prior to, through one year subsequent to, their employment with Nichols, subject to a protective order to safeguard privacy.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentDiscovery MotionPsychotherapist PrivilegePhysician-Patient PrivilegeEmotional DistressWaiverFederal Civil ProcedureCivil Rights ActHostile Work Environment
References
26
Case No. 03-12-00247-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2015

Roland Oil Company v. Railroad Commission of Texas

This administrative appeal concerns the Railroad Commission of Texas's final order cancelling an extension of time for Roland Oil Company to plug inactive wells. The Commission found Roland lacked a good-faith claim to operate its lease due to a 15-month cessation of production. Roland argued that the cessation was excused by a force majeure event (a Commission severance order) and that its repair and testing activities constituted "Unit Operations" sufficient to maintain the lease. The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the Commission's decision. The appellate court concluded that the force majeure clause in the Unit Agreement required events beyond Roland's reasonable control, which the severance order was not, as it resulted from Roland's own non-compliance. Additionally, the court found that "Unit Operations" specifically refers to activities contributing to the production of oil and gas, which Roland's work on inactive wells did not.

Oil and Gas LawAdministrative LawTexas Court of AppealsRailroad Commission of TexasInactive WellsPlugging RequirementsForce Majeure ClauseUnit AgreementContract InterpretationSubstantial Evidence Standard
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Offshore Exploration & Production LLC v. Morgan Stanley Private Bank, N.A.

The plaintiff, Offshore Exploration and Production, LLC (Offshore), initiated an action seeking a declaratory judgment that Morgan Stanley, acting as an Escrow Agent, must release over $75 million from an escrow fund to defendants Korea National Oil Corporation (KNOC) and Ecopetrol S.A. An arbitration panel had previously ordered Offshore to pay this amount to KNOC and Ecopetrol. However, KNOC and Ecopetrol argued the payment should come directly from Offshore to preserve the escrow fund for other obligations, contending that this dispute falls under the arbitration clause of their Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA). The defendants moved to stay or dismiss the action pending arbitration, while Offshore cross-moved for summary judgment. The court, emphasizing the strong federal policy favoring international arbitration, found that the SPA's broad arbitration clause, which incorporated the American Arbitration Association's International Arbitration Rules, clearly delegated issues of arbitrability to the arbitration panel. The court rejected Offshore's arguments that the dispute arose solely under the Escrow Agreement or that a conflict existed between the SPA's mandatory arbitration clause and the Escrow Agreement's permissive forum selection clause. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion to stay the action, pending the arbitration panel's decision on arbitrability and the merits, and denied Offshore's motion for summary judgment without prejudice.

ArbitrationInternational ArbitrationStay of ProceedingsDeclaratory JudgmentContract DisputeEscrow AgreementStock Purchase AgreementArbitrabilityForum SelectionFederal Arbitration Act
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 1,473 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