Cimarex Energy Co. v. Mauboules
Supreme Court of Louisiana
1DissentKnoll, J.
|)For the following reasons, I respectfully dissent.
In my opinion, the primary question before the court is simple: did the trial court commit manifest error in finding, as a matter of fact, Cimarex1 did not “state a reasonable cause” for its failure to timely pay the mineral royalties owed to Orange River? Whether an action was reasonable is a question best left to the sound judgment of the trial court, and I do not find any evidence of manifest error in the trial court’s holding. Indeed, the Mauboles’ claim to the royalties was so tenuous, both legally and factually, that no reasonable…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
- McDuffie v. WalkerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1909
- Pinsonneault v. Merchants & Farmers Bank & Trust CompanySupreme Court of Louisiana · 2002
- Louisiana Bag Co., Inc. v. Audubon Indem. Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 2008
- Tweedel v. BrasseauxSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1983
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.