Legal Opinion
Harrell v. Samson Resources Co.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided July 7, 1998No. 82,139PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHargrave, J.
¶ 1 The issue to be determined is whether this gas balancing dispute should be resolved by allowing bálancing in kind, pre-depletion cash balancing or cash balancing upon depletion. The trial court allowed pre-depletion gas balancing on the Deputy 21-1 well at the weighted average price received by defendants, and awarded prejudgment interest and attorney fees to the plaintiff.
¶2 Plaintiffs and defendants executed a joint operating agreement covering all of Section 21, Township 12 North, Range 16 West, Custer Co., Oklahoma, in which Cono-co, Inc. (not a party to this suit) was designated as…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Earp v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
- Story v. HefnerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1975
- Seal v. Corporation CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1986
- Oxley v. General Atlantic Resources, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1997
- Hull v. Sun Refining and Marketing Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1990
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Armstrong Petroleum Corp. v. Tri-Valley Oil & Gas Co.California Court of Appeal · 2004
- DEPT. OF SECURITIES EX REL. FAUGHT v. BlairSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2010
- IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF VOSESupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2017
- LAUBENSTEIN v. BODE TOWER, L.L.C.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2016
- KRUG v. HELMERICH & PAYNE, INC.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2015
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.