Search for: "Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, LLC v. Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd."
Results 1 - 20
of 25
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Oct 2021, 12:01 pm
Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, LLC, 363 S.W.3d 192, 198, 202 (Tex. 2012). [read post]
6 Sep 2017, 7:10 am
Landowners in Texas challenged the right of pipelines to condemn easements for intrastate lines in Texas in Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. v. [read post]
19 Jul 2017, 6:38 am
Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. v. [read post]
23 Feb 2017, 5:39 pm
Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. [read post]
17 Jan 2017, 4:32 am
Texas Rice Land Partners Ltd. [read post]
9 Jan 2017, 7:42 am
Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. v. [read post]
10 Mar 2015, 4:09 am
In Texas Rice Land Partners Ltd. v. [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 9:00 am
In the 2012 case of Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd., et al., v. [read post]
17 Jul 2013, 7:26 am
Mose Buchele has written a series of articles, also aired on KUT, about the pipeline industry's failed efforts to make it easier for pipelines to exercise the power of eminent domain after the Texas Supreme Court's decision in Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. v. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 7:27 am
Rice Land Partners, Ltd. v. [read post]
6 Jun 2013, 4:49 am
Rice Land Partners, Ltd. v. [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 4:44 am
The farmers relied upon the 2012 Texas Supreme Court decision Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. v. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 8:18 am
DENBURY GREEN PIPELINE-TEXAS, LLC, No. 09-0901. [read post]
3 Sep 2012, 10:18 am
” about TEXAS RICE LAND PARTNERS, LTD. [read post]
17 Aug 2012, 11:35 am
No more guidance about Texas Rice Land Partners TEXAS RICE LAND PARTNERS, LTD. [read post]
11 Jun 2012, 9:14 pm
Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas LLC (No. 09-0901). [read post]
12 Apr 2012, 12:48 pm
In Texas Rice Land Partners, LTD v. [read post]
12 Apr 2012, 12:48 pm
In Texas Rice Land Partners, LTD v. [read post]
2 Mar 2012, 9:10 am
Private pipelines: Eminent domain cannot be used for purely private use Texas Rice Land Partners Ltd., et al. v. [read post]
30 Dec 2011, 6:53 am
Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. v. [read post]
