Search for: "State v. Miner"
Results 161 - 180
of 1,488
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Feb 2014, 8:53 am
Case Name: TERRY MINER and COLLEEN MINER, Husband and Wife v. [read post]
26 Nov 2010, 7:13 am
United States v. [read post]
24 Mar 2008, 12:12 pm
United States v. [read post]
26 Mar 2019, 10:25 am
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana held that a unit operator may not recover post-production costs from an unleased mineral owner’s share of production proceeds in Allen Johnson, et al. v. [read post]
26 Mar 2019, 10:25 am
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana held that a unit operator may not recover post-production costs from an unleased mineral owner’s share of production proceeds in Allen Johnson, et al. v. [read post]
5 Sep 2013, 9:16 am
Appealed from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. [read post]
9 Feb 2018, 12:45 pm
Under Texas law and under the laws of most states, real property can have two co-existing estates – the surface estate and the mineral estate (covering minerals, oil, and gas below the surface). [read post]
24 Dec 2008, 1:35 pm
United States v. [read post]
10 Apr 2010, 9:04 am
United States v. [read post]
24 Feb 2008, 8:03 am
United States v. [read post]
15 Mar 2024, 9:14 am
Carl v. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 1:15 pm
Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District: Miner v. [read post]
6 Apr 2012, 11:34 am
United States v. [read post]
29 Jul 2011, 3:46 pm
In Marks v. [read post]
14 Jun 2016, 12:13 pm
Article 22 of the Mineral Code states that a mineral servitude owner “is obligated, insofar as practicable, to restore the surface to its original condition at the earliest reasonable time. [read post]
16 Jun 2023, 1:16 pm
In Davis v. [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 12:21 pm
Weber v. [read post]
8 Nov 2016, 4:30 am
Pel-State sent Shell a notice that the contractor was not paying for the sub’s work and then perfected a mineral lien. [read post]
3 Oct 2022, 2:20 pm
After reviewing other authority, the Corpus Christi court concluded that, contrary to Mapco, “the well-recognized, decisional law states that the mineral estate owner owns the minerals but not the subsurface. [read post]
14 Jun 2017, 5:13 am
In Davis v. [read post]
