Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Garman v. Conoco, Inc.

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided December 5, 1994No. 94SA191Published

1ConcurrenceJustice Erickson

specially concurring:

I specially concur in the result reached by the majority. The following question of law was certified to this court in accordance with C.A.R. 21.1 by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado:

Under Colorado law, is the owner of an overriding royalty interest in gas production required to bear a proportionate share of post-production costs, such as processing, transportation, and compression, when the assignment creating the overriding royalty interest is silent as to how post-production costs are to be borne?

The answer to the certified question is no.…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Wood v. TXO Production Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
  2. West v. Alpar Resources, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1980
  3. California Company v. Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the InteriorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1961
  4. Reale v. Board of Real Estate AppraisersSupreme Court of Colorado · 1994
  5. Hanna Oil and Gas Co. v. TaylorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1988

7 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