Eason Oil Co. v. Howard Engineering, Inc.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the Court
OPALA, Vice Chief Justice.
The dispositive first-impression issue this case presents for our review is whether the working interest ownership regime in a producing well completed under Corporation Commission spacing and compulsory pooling orders is altered when a subsequent order reduces the size of drilling and spacing units for the same common source of supply. We answer in the negative, holding that once production was established from the designated common source of supply, the working interest in the producing well vested in proportion to participation under valid compulsory pooling…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Reeves v. AgeeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
- Womack v. City of Oklahoma CitySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1986
- Union Texas Petroleum, a Division of Allied Chemical Corp. v. Corporation CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1982
- Depuy v. HoemeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
- Amoco Production Co. v. Corporation CommissionCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1986
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Brumark Corp. v. Samson Resources Corp.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1995
- Harding & Shelton, Inc. v. Prospective Investment & Trading Co.Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2005
- Harding & Shelton, Inc. v. Sundown Energy, Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2006
- Centurion Oil, Inc. v. Stephens Production Co.Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1993
- Donald C. Slawson v. Mack Oil CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1992
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.