Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Rogers v. Osborn

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided May 28, 1952No. 12362PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

NORVELL, Justice.

Certain operations described as “periodic flowing” were undertaken by ap-pellees to bring in an oil or gas well, and the question presented by this lawsuit is whether or not such actions may be properly considered as “drilling or re-working operations” under the provisions of the oil and gas lease involved.

Appellants are the named lessors in a written instrument dated September 21, 1942, and the successors in interest of said lessors. The appellees are the lessee and those claiming under him.

The pertinent clauses of the lease are contained in paragraphs 2 and 5 thereof and…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. McCallister v. Texas Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1920
  2. Morrison v. SwaimCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1949
  3. Fast v. WhitneyWyoming Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Terry v. Texas Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1920
  5. Smith v. Gypsy Oil Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Clopton Rogers v. OsbornTexas Supreme Court · 1953
  2. State v. HarringtonTexas Supreme Court · 1966
  3. John D. Fields v. Stanolind Oil and Gas Company and Ada Oil CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1956
  4. Clopton Rogers v. OsbornTexas Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Clopton Rogers v. OsbornTexas Supreme Court · 1953

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API