Legal Opinion
Gore Oil Co. v. Roosth
Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)
Decided January 20, 2005No. 11-03-00167-CVPublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
W.G. ARNOT, III, Chief Justice.
The issue in this appeal is whether the grantor’s or the grantee’s successors-in-interest should bear the burden of outstanding mineral and nonparticipating royalty interests. Appellees, Steve Roosth, Trustee; New Horizons Oil & Gas, Ltd.; and John D. Procter, Trustee, are sueees-sors-in-interest to the grantor, Peyton McKnight. Appellees brought suit against the leasehold interest owners 1 and others 2 after the leasehold interest owners failed to pay appellees the full amount to which they claimed to be entitled. Appellees sought a declaratory judgment…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Sun Oil Co. (Delaware) v. MadeleyTexas Supreme Court · 1981
- Reilly v. Rangers Management, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1987
- R & P Enterprises v. LaGuarta, Gavrel & Kirk, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1980
- Luckel v. WhiteTexas Supreme Court · 1992
- Cherokee Water Co. v. ForderhauseTexas Supreme Court · 1982
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Prize Energy Resources, L.P. v. Cliff Hoskins, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2011
- Stewman Ranch, Inc. v. Double M. Ranch, Ltd., Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)2006
- Moon Royalty, LLC v. Boldrick Partners, Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)2007
- Johnson v. Conner, Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler)2008
- Veterans Land Board v. Lesley, Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)2009
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.