Legal Opinion
Texaco Inc. v. Industrial Commission of the State
North Dakota Supreme Court
Decided November 28, 1989No. Civ. 890167PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ERICKSTAD, Chief Justice.
Texaco Inc. appealed from a district court decision affirming a compulsory pooling order issued by the North Dakota Industrial Commission for the development and operation of an oil and gas well in the NE 1 /) of Section 25, Township 153 North, Range 96 West in McKenzie County. We affirm.
The NEVl of Section 25 is located in the Keene-Silurian Pool. Texaco holds mineral leases covering ⅜ of the mineral interests in the NEV) of Section 25, and Harley Thompson owns an undivided ⅝⅛ of the mineral interests, which are unleased. On December 10, 1987, Texaco completed a well…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- County of Stutsman v. State Historical Society of North DakotaNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1985
- Bandini Petroleum Co. v. Superior Court, Los Angeles Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Southern Valley Grain Dealers Ass'n v. Board of County CommissionersNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1977
- Patterson v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1938
- Patterson v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Egeland v. Continental Resources, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
- Union Pacific Resources Co. v. Texaco, Inc.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1994
- Gadeco, LLC v. Industrial CommissionNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2012
- Continental Resources, Inc. v. Farrar Oil Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
- Cowling v. Board of Oil, Gas & MiningUtah Supreme Court · 1991
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.