Legal Opinion
Fransen v. Conoco, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided August 30, 1995No. Nos. 94-6234, 94-6268PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JENKINS, Senior District Judge.
The plaintiffs own mineral interests in certain property in Oklahoma. They brought this diversity action against their lessees, Conoco, Inc., and C.I.G. Exploration, Inc. (CIGE), alleging that the lessees had failed to protect and develop their interests. The district court held that a prior decision of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission barred the plaintiffs’ claims. We affirm.
I
The plaintiffs own undivided interests in the oil and gas underlying section 14, Township 12 North, Range 16 West, Custer County, Oklahoma. Section 14 is a drilling and spacing unit for…
2Cases cited56 opinions
- Commissioner v. Estate of BoschSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- West v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
- United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
- King v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Thomas E. Bowen v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1978
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Finley v. Marathon Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
- Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2003
- Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2005
- Brown v. ShanksCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1999
- Krug v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2013
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.