No. 13-0156
Click for Official Page
Oral argument was held on February 4, 2014. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on June 20, 2014. File Closed
Tracking 2 articles about this case.
June 20, 2014
from SCOTXblog
This article also mentions 10 other cases.
December 13, 2013
from SCOTXblog
This article also mentions 7 other cases.
| Appellate District: | 1st Court of Appeals |
| Outcome Below: | Affirmed |
| COA Docket No.: | 01-10-00350-CV |
| Opinion Author: | Honorable Harvey G. Brown |
| Trial Court: | 21st District Court |
| County: | Washington |
| Trial Judge: | Honorable Terry Flenniken |
| Trial Docket: | 33,968 |
| Date | Event | Outcome | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2014-08-07 | Case Stored | ||
| 2014-08-01 | Mandate issued | ||
| 2014-06-20 | Opinion issued | Court of Appeals' judgment reversed & judgment rendered | |
| 2014-06-20 | Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record | Issued | |
| This case was awaiting the Court's decision after oral argument between February 4, 2014 and June 20, 2014. | |||
| 2014-02-04 | Oral argument | ||
| 2014-01-08 | Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received | ||
| 2013-12-18 | Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received | ||
| 2013-12-13 | Case set for oral argument | Case set for oral argument | |
| 2013-12-13 | Petition for Review granted | ||
| 2013-12-13 | Petition for Review disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2013-11-20 | Amicus Curiae Brief received | ||
| 2013-11-05 | Letter Filed | ||
| 2013-10-29 | Reply Brief (Petitioner) | ||
| 2013-10-10 | Brief on the Merits (Respondent) | ||
| 2013-09-23 | Brief on the Merits (Petitioner) | ||
| 2013-09-05 | Case Record Filed | ||
| 2013-08-27 | Record Requested in Petition for Review | ||
| 2013-08-23 | Brief on the Merits Requested | ||
| 2013-08-22 | Amicus Curiae Letter Received | ||
| This case was waiting for a decision about briefing or a possible grant between May 29, 2013 and August 22, 2013. | |||
| 2013-05-29 | Response to Petition (Respondent) | ||
| 2013-05-03 | Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response | ||
| 2013-04-02 | Case forwarded to Court | ||
| 2013-04-01 | Response Waiver filed | ||
| 2013-03-25 | Petition for Review (Petitioner) | ||
| 2013-03-13 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2013-03-13 | Phone call from Clerk's Office | ||
| 2013-03-12 | Amendment to Motion filed | ||
| 2013-03-11 | Phone call from Clerk's Office | ||
| 2013-03-07 | Response to Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review | ||
| 2013-03-07 | Call received | ||
| 2013-03-06 | Certification (various) in case received | ||
| 2013-03-06 | Phone call from Clerk's Office | ||
| 2013-03-05 | Phone call from Clerk's Office | ||
| 2013-03-05 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review filed |
| Party | Counsel | Role | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hegar, Will |
|
Respondent | |
| Key Operating & Equipment, Inc. |
|
Petitioner |
| Amicus Curiae | Counsel | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texas Oil & Gas Association |
|
The owner of a surface tract wanted to stop trucks from using a road across that property to operate wells on a neighbor's property. The one fact that the Texas Supreme Court holds to be dispositive is that the mineral rights underneath that property had been pooled with the mineral rights that were being drilled underneath a neighbor's property.
The Court observed that "the 'primary legal consequence' of pooling" is "that production anywhere on a pooled unit is treated as production on every tract in the unit." From that basis, the Court concluded that, just as a mineral rights owner would have an implied easement to access the surface of a single piece of property to drill beneath it, it would have access to the entire surface over the entire pooled mineral interest to drill anywhere within that unit.
