Legal Opinion · Dissent

Appalachian Land Co. v. EQT Production Co.

Kentucky Supreme Court

Decided August 20, 2015No. 2013-SC-000598-CLPublished

1DissentAbramson, J.

I respectfully dissent. Pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (CR) 76.87(1), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit certified the following question of Kentucky law:

Does Kentucky’s “at the well” rule allow a natural-gas processor to deduct all severance taxes paid at market prior to calculating a contractual royalty payment based on “the market price of gas at the well,” or does the resource’s at-the-well price include a proportionate share of the severance taxes owed such that a processor may deduct only that portion of the severance taxes attributable to the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Shawnee Telecom Resources, Inc. v. BrownKentucky Supreme Court · 2011
  2. Poplar Creek Development Co. v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2011
  3. Kilmer v. Elexco Land Services, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  4. Tenneco West, Inc. v. Marathon Oil CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
  5. Bice v. Petro-Hunt, L.L.C.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2009

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

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

Powered by the Exa API