Legal Opinion · Dissent

Graham v. Prochaska

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided December 31, 2013No. 04-12-00755-CVPublished

1DissentMarialyn Barnard, Justice

Admittedly, without reference to the John Hancock/Joslin and Joslin/Powell deeds, the majority could not reach the conclusion that the 1950 deed reserved to Prochaska a floating one-half royalty interest as opposed to a fixed one-sixteenth royalty interest. Because Texas law mandates the 1950 deed be harmonized by reference only to the language within the four corners of the document, I must respectfully dissent.

Proper Interpretation of an Unambiguous Deed

I believe the majority misapplies the law pertaining to proper deed construction, resulting in an incorrect construction of the unambiguous…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Coker v. CokerTexas Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Luckel v. WhiteTexas Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Dula Dashiell Cockrell v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1956
  4. French v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Centerpoint Energy Houston Electric, L.L.P. v. Old TJC Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2005

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API