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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 13-02-136-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2005

Mission Resources, Inc., F/K/A Bellwether Exploration Co. and Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. and Coastal Oil & Gas USA. L. P. v. Garza Energy Trust

This case from the Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals addresses an appeal by Mission Resources, Inc. (formerly Coastal Oil & Gas Corp.) against Garza Energy Trust, et al., concerning a $14 million judgment. Appellees alleged subsurface trespass caused by Coastal's hydraulic fracturing (fracing) of a well on an adjacent tract, leading to drainage of gas and gas condensate from their mineral leases. Other claims included breaches of good faith pooling and implied covenants. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment on findings of subsurface trespass, malice, felony theft, and bad faith pooling, upholding the punitive damages award. However, the court reversed and remanded the issue of attorneys' fees, requiring segregation between recoverable and unrecoverable claims.

Hydraulic FracturingSubsurface TrespassOil and Gas LawMineral LeasesRoyalty DisputesPunitive DamagesCorporate MaliceFelony TheftBad Faith PoolingImplied Covenants
References
51
Case No. 03-98-00083-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 1998

Tana Oil and Gas Corporation and Teco Gas Marketing Company v. Garth C. Bates

This case is an interlocutory appeal from the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, regarding a class certification order. Appellants Tana Oil and Gas Corporation and Teco Gas Marketing Company challenged the certification of a class represented by Garth C. Bates and Richard G. Cernosek. The class action alleges breach of contract related to oil and gas royalties and breach of the implied covenant to market gas. Tana argued the trial court abused its discretion in finding commonality, predominance, and superiority for class certification. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, finding no abuse of discretion in the preliminary ruling on merits or the findings supporting class certification.

Class ActionOil and Gas RoyaltiesBreach of ContractImplied Covenant to MarketClass CertificationCommonalityPredominanceSuperiorityInterlocutory AppealAbuse of Discretion
References
24
Case No. 13-14-00402-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2015

ConocoPhillips, Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co., L.P., and Lois Strieber, Individually and as of the Estate of Jerry Strieber v. Ralph Wade Koopmann, Karen Marie Koenig, and Lorene H. Koopmann

This appeal concerns a dispute over oil and gas royalty payments and ownership of a defeasible term, non-participating royalty interest (NPRI). Appellants, ConocoPhillips Company, Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co., L.P., and Lois Strieber, challenge the trial court's summary judgment that declared Koopmanns as owners of Strieber’s NPRI. Koopmanns, as cross-appellants, contest the take-nothing summary judgment against their claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, and negligence, which sought withheld royalties and interest. Additionally, Strieber appeals the trial court's order severing her cross-claim against Burlington and ConocoPhillips, which alleged breach of an oral contract, after the summary declaratory judgment was granted. The central legal argument revolves around whether the Texas Natural Resources Code allows for the withholding of royalty payments without interest during a legitimate title dispute.

Oil and Gas LeaseRoyalty PaymentsTitle DisputeSummary JudgmentSeverance OrderContract BreachUnjust EnrichmentConversionNegligence ClaimsEconomic Loss Rule
References
36
Case No. 13-23-00492-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2025

Robert S. Alcott III v. 1893 Oil and Gas, Ltd. and ELP2 Minerals, Ltd.

Appellants Robert S. Alcott III, Patricia Brashear, and Katie Lynn Stevenson appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of appellees 1893 Oil and Gas, Ltd. and ELP2 Minerals, Ltd. The dispute centers on mineral interests in Live Oak County, Texas, stemming from a 1922 "Alcott Deed" which appellants claim conveyed an undivided interest in oil, gas, or minerals. Appellees argued the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and the statute of frauds, asserting the Alcott Deed lacked an adequate legal description. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the Alcott Deed violated the statute of frauds due to an insufficient legal description of the purported mineral interest.

oil and gasmineral rightssummary judgmentstatute of fraudsproperty lawdeed interpretationappellate reviewreal estateTexas lawundivided interest
References
15
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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 5,276 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