7 results for 'cat:"Energy" AND cat:"Property" AND cat:"Contract"'.
J. Kleeh denies the family business's but grants the hydrocarbon exploration company's cross motions for summary judgment in a breach of contract suit claiming the company failed to properly pay oil and gas royalties in Doddridge County. Since the business does not own the interests in the three leaseholds specified in count two of its complaint, the court finds there is no enforceable contract between it and the company.
Court: USDC Northern District of West Virginia, Judge: Kleeh, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv1, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: energy, property, contract
J. Edmondson finds the court of appeals improperly reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the petroleum lessor. Exhibits presented during summary proceedings were insufficient to show a material fact that a well was commercially profitable. An overriding royalty interest may be extinguished by an extinguishment of the working interest from which it was fashioned by the lessee's surrender in substantial compliance with the lease. The appeals court opinion is vacated. The trial court's judgment is reversed, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court, Judge: Edmondson, Filed On: September 19, 2023, Case #: 119810, Categories: energy, property, contract
J. Tufte finds that the district court properly issued an order in a quiet title action for oil and gas leasehold interests. The district court was correct in concluding that a company’s leases terminated under their terms when production ceased and they failed to timely commence reworking
operations. Affirmed.
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court, Judge: Tufte, Filed On: August 2, 2023, Case #: 2023ND142, Categories: energy, property, contract
J. Marbley denies, in part, the motions for summary judgment filed by the landowners and the oil and gas drilling companies, ruling none of the parties can prevail on the declaratory judgment claim filed by the landowners. There is a question of fact as to whether the definition of "Utica Shale" in the parties' drilling contract includes the Point Pleasant formations extracted by the drilling companies. Additionally, the landowners cannot prevail on their trespassing claim because of the ambiguity in the contract.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Marbley, Filed On: June 28, 2023, Case #: 2:19cv2221, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: energy, property, contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free