Legal Opinion
H.G. Sledge, Inc. v. Prospective Investment & Trading Co.
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
Decided November 9, 2000No. 03-99-00879-CVPublishedCited by 155 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JAN P. PATTERSON, Justice.
The issue before us concerns the proper scope of the notice provision of the Railroad Commission’s rule 37 related to well spacing. See 16 Tex.Admin.Code § 3.37(a)(2) (2000). This dispute arose when the Railroad Commission (“the Commission”) denied a complaint filed by The Prospective Investment and Trading Company, Ltd. (“PITCO”), which challenged the validity of a drilling permit granted to H.G. Sledge, Inc. (“Sledge”). When Sledge filed its application for a drilling permit under a rule 37 exception with the Commission, Sledge did not notify PITCO, an overriding…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Texas Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control BoardTexas Supreme Court · 1993
- Mayhew v. Town of SunnyvaleTexas Supreme Court · 1998
- Continental Coffee Products Co. v. CazarezTexas Supreme Court · 1997
- United States v. LarionoffSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Texas Health Facilities Commission v. Charter Medical-Dallas, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1984
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by155 opinions
- Southwestern Energy Production Co. v. Berry-HelfandTexas Supreme Court · 2016
- BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. v. Martinez Environmental Group, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2002
- State v. VasilasCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2006
- Cone v. Fagadau Energy Corp.Court of Appeals of Texas · 2002
- Buddy Gregg Motor Homes, Inc. v. Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2004
150 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.