Graham v. Prochaska
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Opinion by
LUZ ELENA D. CHAPA, Justice.
In this appeal, we must construe a 1950 warranty deed to determine the nature and size of the royalty interest retained by the grantors. The trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of the Pro-chaskas, who are the appellees and heirs of the grantors, and ruled they own a “floating” one-half royalty interest. The Reg-munds, who are the appellants and heirs of the grantees, contend the trial court misconstrued the warranty deed and ask us to reverse and render judgment that the Pro-chaskas are entitled to a “fixed” one-sixteenth royalty…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Valence Operating Co. v. DorsettTexas Supreme Court · 2005
- Heritage Resources, Inc. v. NationsBankTexas Supreme Court · 1997
- Luckel v. WhiteTexas Supreme Court · 1992
- Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. v. Garza Energy TrustTexas Supreme Court · 2008
- Schlittler v. SmithTexas Supreme Court · 1937
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Hysaw v. DawkinsTexas Supreme Court · 2016
- Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. HyderTexas Supreme Court · 2016
- Toni Combest and Mountain Laurel Minerals, LLC v. Mustang Minerals, LLC, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2016
- Medina Interests, Ltd v. William Paul Trial, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2015
- Butler v. HortonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2014
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.