Co-author Ryan Breen*
What happens when a property owner looks a subcontractor in the eye and promises to cover the general contractor’s unpaid bills — but never puts it in writing? According to the Dallas Court of Appeals, that promise
Co-Author: Gunner West
In Equinor Energy LP v. Lindale Pipeline, LLC the Supreme Court reversed a jury award of $26 million that had been affirmed by a court of appeals, based on the meaning of one humble preposition. A supplier’s
Co-Author Gunner West
In B.H.C.H. Mineral, Ltd. v. Needmore Minerals, LLP, the San Antonio Court of appeals held that a reservation of “1/32 of all oil, gas and other minerals” coupled with attribute-stripping language and a minimum royalty requirement
Co-author David Pruitt
Our Cornucopia post was a reminder that “subject to” is a phrase that punches well above its weight. In Brown et al v. Endeavor Energy Resources, L.P., those same two words undid a $2.3 million summary
On July 22nd, 2025, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals issued its memorandum opinion in Karl Kruse GmbH & Co. KG v. N.F. Smith & Associates, L.P.. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of a special appearance by
Co-author David Priutt
So says the Supreme Court of Texas in Braxton Minerals III, LLC v. Bauer. For many years there was doubt and confusion over whether a Texas court could assert its jurisdiction in a suit over mineral rights
Co-author Gunner West
… at least according to the El Paso Court of Appeals. In Craddick v. Cimarex Energy Co., that court affirmed a take-nothing judgment against owners of overriding royalty interests in an oil and gas lease that
In Texas, business decisions such as moving funds between projects, paying one vendor before another, or transferring equipment to a related entity can potentially trigger serious civil and even criminal liability under two Texas statutes: the Texas Construction Trust Fund
Co-author Caleb White
In Boerschig v. Rio Grande Electrical Cooperative, Inc. the Supreme Court of Texas, in a four-justice opinion, a concurrence and four dissents, determined that an electric cooperative holds an easement by estoppel for a distribution line but,
Co-author Kealey Poole*
We at Energy and the Law solemnly swear and affirm that we will no longer report on the Van Dyke Presumption just as soon as litigants – win, lose or remand – exhaust their efforts to confirm,
