Search for: "State v. Miner"
Results 101 - 120
of 1,491
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Sep 2011, 1:30 pm
Although the Service manages the surface of the ANF for the United States, mineral rights in most of the ANF are privately owned. [read post]
18 Jul 2018, 2:22 pm
In Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Jul 2018, 2:22 pm
In Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 3:26 pm
The real estate contract stated clearly that the minerals were not to be conveyed. [read post]
14 Jul 2017, 8:47 am
The court’s commonsense ruling in Sterling Sugars v. [read post]
14 Jul 2017, 8:47 am
The court’s commonsense ruling in Sterling Sugars v. [read post]
3 Jul 2020, 4:00 am
’ Primrose Operating Co. v. [read post]
26 Jan 2016, 8:10 am
The sharp decline in oil prices over the past year and a half has had a significant impact on operators and mineral lessees in Louisiana and in other oil-producing states. [read post]
26 Jan 2023, 4:15 am
The question in Brooke-Willbanks v. [read post]
17 Mar 2015, 7:36 am
It is styled, Spurlock v. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 8:12 am
United States v. [read post]
10 Mar 2021, 1:20 pm
In Hill v. [read post]
27 Sep 2012, 12:36 pm
Appealed from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. [read post]
19 Nov 2021, 8:00 am
Stated otherwise, until the Lyles seek to develop their minerals, Midway owes no duty to the Lyles respecting the surface usage. [read post]
12 Jun 2017, 9:12 am
On June 2, 2017 the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s judgment cancelling a mineral lease under Mineral Code article 140 and provided further clarity on a production in paying quantities analysis under Louisiana Mineral Code article 124.[1] The dispute in Gloria’s Ranch, L.L.C. v. [read post]
12 Jun 2017, 9:12 am
On June 2, 2017 the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s judgment cancelling a mineral lease under Mineral Code article 140 and provided further clarity on a production in paying quantities analysis under Louisiana Mineral Code article 124.[1] The dispute in Gloria’s Ranch, L.L.C. v. [read post]
12 Jun 2017, 9:12 am
On June 2, 2017 the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s judgment cancelling a mineral lease under Mineral Code article 140 and provided further clarity on a production in paying quantities analysis under Louisiana Mineral Code article 124.[1] The dispute in Gloria’s Ranch, L.L.C. v. [read post]
27 Sep 2013, 12:39 pm
Mukasey, 534 F.3d at 188 (quoting Council of Alternative Political Parties v. [read post]
13 Nov 2023, 11:53 am
A pro-business entity -- the California Construction and Industrial Minerals Association -- sued, claiming that the ordinance was, among other things, inconsistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which, as you likely know, is a pro-environmental statute. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 2:47 am
In Williams v. [read post]
