Ortiz Oil Co. v. Railroad Commission
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the CourtLevy, Justice
(after stating the case as above).
The principal question to be determined, as the ultimate end and object of the proceeding, is that of the appointment of a receiver on the application of the Railroad Commission of Texas, moving there*378for, to take over and operate the oil well in order for the enforcement of the orders and regulations of the Railroad Commission. There is no feature of relief or remedy afforded by the courts of a higher value than that of acting directly upon the person or property of $he party who would deliberately violate his contracts or do an act wrongful in special…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mingus, Receiver v. WadleyTexas Supreme Court · 1926
- Highway Comm. of Wyoming v. Utah Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Continental Trust Co. v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
- Republic Trust Co. v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1916
- Jordan v. MasseyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1911
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Corzelius v. Railroad CommissionCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1944
- Allen v. WilkersonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1965
- Neill v. NeillCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1965
- Wiseman v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1936
- Cozad v. RomanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1978
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.