Legal Opinion

Hilliard v. Shell Western E & P, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Michigan

Decided November 2, 1993No. 1:93-cr-00021PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

QUIST, District Judge.

Plaintiffs are holders of royalty interests as lessors of mineral rights in oil wells leased to defendant Shell Western E & P, Inc. (Shell). They claim that Shell has wrongfully deducted from their royalty payments a 1% pro rata share of the regulatory fee imposed under the Michigan Supervisor of Wells Act, Act 61 of the Michigan Public Acts of 1939, as amended, M.C.L.A. § 319.1 et seq., M.S.A. § 13.139 (1) et seq. (Act 61). Shell acknowledges that it has deducted the fee, but denies that it has acted wrongfully.

Defendant’s Position

Shell moved for summary judgment…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Whaley v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'nDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API