Published on:

Cases to Watch in Texas Supreme Court

Oil and gas cases I’m following that are now pending before the Texas Supreme Court:

16-0107, Hill v. Shamoun & Norman

Fight over attorneys’ fees related to litigation of trust from H.L. Hunt Estate. Case has been argued. I wrote about the case in a prior post.

16-0804, Perryman v. Spartan Texas Six Capital Partners

Set for oral argument December 5, 2017. Concerns application of the Duhig Rule from Duhig v. Peavey-Moore Lumber Co.

16-0505, Murphy v. Adams

Also set for oral argument December 5, 2017. Issue is the meaning of a drainage offset clause in an oil and gas lease. Our firm represents the royalty owners in this case. I discussed the case in a prior post.

15-0155, Endeavor v. Discovery

16-0935, XOG v. Chesapeake

These two cases will be argued on January 9, 2018. Both concern the proper construction of retained-acreage clauses. I wrote about the cases in a prior post.

Petitions for review are pending in the following cases:

17-0509, Texas Outfitters v. Nicholson

Appeal from award of $1 million for breach of duty of mineral executive rights-holder for failure to lease. I wrote about this case here.

16-0776, Samson v. Hooks

Second appeal of this case. In the first appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Hooks’ claims of fraud were not barred by limitations. 457 S.W. 3d 52 (Tex. 2015). In this appeal, Samson is attacking the award of $17.5 million in fraud damages. My post on the court of appeals’ opinion is here.

17-0266, Burlington v. Texas Crude

Issue is whether post-production costs can be deducted from Texas Crude’s overriding royalty. Our firm is co-counsel for Texas Crude in this appeal. My post on the court of appeals’ opinion in favor of Texas Crude is here.

17-0332, Barrow-Shaver Resources v. Carrizo Oil & Gas

Issue is whether a duty to act reasonably is implied in a consent-to-assign provision.  I wrote about that issue in a recent post.

17-0028, Greer v. Shook

A fraction-of-royalty dispute. I wrote about it here. Our firm represents some of the respondents in this case.



Contact Information