Legal Opinion · Dissent

Heiman v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided March 14, 1995No. 70739Published

1DissentAlma Wilson, Chief Justice

This action was initiated in September, 1984, by a group of working interest owners (Heiman) against the operator (ARCO) to recover their respective shares of gas production proceeds. ARCO stipulated that Heiman was entitled to receive $535,496.23 as their pro rata share of the proceeds for gas produced and sold from April 5, 1982, to May 3, 1983. In January, 1988, ARCO paid Heiman $535,496.23, but refused to pay any interest which may have accrued prior to the date of payment. Because the interest issue in this case is controlled by 52 O.S.1981, § 540, I must respectfully dissent to today’s…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Utica National Bank & Trust Co. v. Associated Producers Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1980
  2. Teel v. Public Service Co. of OklahomaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1987
  3. Seal v. Corporation CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1986
  4. Hull v. Sun Refining and Marketing Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1990
  5. Goss v. Trinity Savings & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1991

2 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