The Texas Supreme Court, in Lightning Oil v. Anadarko, determined that Anadarko’s drilling would not be a trespass, even though the drilling would penetrate Lightning Oil’s mineral leasehold. A surface owner allowed Anadarko, an energy company, to install a horizontal well. Anadarko did not own the minerals below this surface tract; the well was to […]Read more "Texas Supreme Court Takes Flexible Approach to Subsurface Rights"
In Pinto Tech v. Sheldon, the Texas Supreme Court considered two key provisions relating to a shareholder agreement’s forum selection clause, which provided for exclusive jurisdiction and venue in Delaware. In interpreting this contract, the Court determined that dismissal for filing suit in the wrong court was proper as to some, but improper as to […]Read more "Overlooked Contract Terms Can Have Big Consequences"
A landowner claimed that an energy company’s pollution damaged the property, in violation of contract terms and common law nuisance and trespass prohibitions. An arbitration panel agreed, and awarded over $20 million. The energy company tried to vacate the award in court, arguing that only the state agency that regulates contamination from oil and gas […]Read more "Regulation by State Agency Does Not Narrow Landowner Claims"
In this industrial construction dispute, both parties complained of the other. The contractor said that the owner did not pay all of what was due. The owner said that the equipment installed by the contractor did not work properly, so that the owner had to pay another company for repairs. The jury seemed to think […]Read more "Breach of Contract Gives Rise to Damages, but Not a Free Lunch!"
Email exchanges can create binding contracts, even when a formal document (which both parties expected to have prepared) is never signed, and even when all contract terms are not addressed in the emails, according to the judge in Neurovision v Medtronic. Executives Exchanged Emails Neurovision had sued Medtronic for patent infringement. While the suit was […]Read more "So Easy to Make a Contract in the Digital Age"
In Johns v. Eastman Chemical Company, a federal judge in West Virginia recently ruled that a case could go forward against the seller of a chemical to a chemical distribution company, based on alleged failures to disclose all of the hazards associated with the chemical. The ruling is a reminder that chemical sellers should err […]Read more "Chemical Seller Beware – Disclosure Is Mandatory"