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. 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. 01–04–01277–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. 13-02-136-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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tana Oil and Gas Corp. v. Cernosek

Tana Oil and Gas Corp. appealed a district court's partial summary judgment which found Tana in breach of oil and gas lease agreements for underpaying royalties to a class of mineral-interest owners and improperly deducting gas-lift fees. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, ruling that Tana had correctly calculated royalties based on the "amount realized" from the sale of raw gas at the well. The court further determined that the lease agreements permitted the deduction of reasonable post-production costs and gas-lift fees. Consequently, the appellate court rendered judgment in favor of Tana, finding no breach of the lease agreements, and also reversed the award of damages and attorney's fees to the Class.

Oil and Gas LeaseRoyalty PaymentsBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentPost-Production CostsGas-Lift FeesAmount RealizedNet ProceedsMineral-Interest OwnersAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co. v. Petromax Operating Co.

Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company, LP appealed a summary judgment concerning oil and gas lease interests in Brazos County. Burlington claimed a continued interest in an Area of Mutual Interest (AMI) and specific leases, like the Wilson lease, stemming from a 1975 agreement and subsequent assignments. The Appellees argued that a 1994 assignment by Burlington's predecessor had conveyed all such interests, thereby terminating the AMI. The appellate court found the 1994 assignment unambiguous and concluded that Burlington had indeed divested its interests in the AMI-related leases. Consequently, the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment for the Appellees was affirmed, ruling that the AMI had expired.

Oil and Gas LeasesArea of Mutual InterestFarmout AgreementAssignmentSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationProperty RightsMineral RightsTexas LawAppellate Review
References
28
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. 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. 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. 03-04-00820-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2005

Tana Oil and Gas Corporation v. Richard G. Cernosek CER-MOR-LEB, a General Partnership And Garth C. Bates

Tana Oil and Gas Corp. appealed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment, which found Tana breached its oil and gas lease agreements by underpaying royalties and deducting gas-lift fees. Tana contended it paid royalties based on 100% of realized amounts and that deductions for post-production costs and gas-lift fees were permitted. The Court of Appeals agreed with Tana, reversing the district court's summary judgment and rendering judgment in favor of Tana, and remanded for a determination of attorney's fees for Tana.

Oil and Gas LeaseRoyalty PaymentsBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentPost-Production CostsGas-Lift FeesClass ActionAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationAt-the-Well Price
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 1,202 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