Legal Opinion

Garman v. Conoco, Inc.

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided December 5, 1994No. 94SA191PublishedCited by 82 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Rovira

The following question of law was certified to this court by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in accordance with C.A.R. 21.1:

Under Colorado law, is the owner of an overriding royalty interest in gas production required to bear a proportionate share of post-production costs, such as processing, transportation, and compression, when the assignment creating the overriding royalty interest is silent as to how post-production costs are to be borne?

The district court provided three examples of post-production costs but left the term “post-production costs” undefined. We…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Pittman v. Larson Distributing Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1986
  2. Gilmore v. Superior Oil Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1964
  3. Wood v. TXO Production Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
  4. West v. Alpar Resources, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Martin v. GlassDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1983

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

3Cited by82 opinions

  1. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Farm Credit Bank of WichitaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000
  2. Stirman v. Exxon CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2002
  3. Poplar Creek Development Co. v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2011
  4. Estate of Tawney Ex Rel. Goff v. Columbia Natural Resources, L.L.C.West Virginia Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Bailey v. Shell Western E&P, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2010

77 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