Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law | Open Access Articles

The Federal Courts Study Committee Begins Its Work., Joseph F. Weis Jr.

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

Go to article

Improper Use Of Removal And Its Disruptive Effect On State Court Proceedings: A Call To Reform 28 U.S.C. 1446., Ellen Bloomer Mitchell

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

Go to article

Technology Transfers: What If The Other Party Files Bankruptcy., Ann Livingston, Leif M. Clark

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

Go to article

The New Texas Business Corporation Act Merger Provisions., Curtis W. Huff

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

Go to article

Interference With Prospective Civil Litigation By Spollation Of Evidence: Should Texas Adopt A New Tort., Philip A. Lionberger

St. Mary's Law Journal

Texas courts should adopt a tort for spoliation of evidence. Spoliation of evidence is the tampering with, interference with, loss of, or destruction of evidence. Spoliation of evidence is a serious legal problem because it increases a litigant’s difficulty in proving a cause of action or a defense. Evidence destruction may also increase litigation costs and cause the trial court to make factfinding errors. Texas courts should adopt the tort of spoliation of evidence because it compensates injured litigants and deters future acts of spoliation. Another reason for adopting the tort for spoliation of evidence is the inadequacy of alternative …

Go to article

D.W.I. Suspects Do Not Have Right To Consult With Counsel Before Intoxilyzer Test Under Texas Constitution Because Test Is Not A Critical Stage In Proceedings., Clifford C. Herberg Jr.

St. Mary's Law Journal

Under the Texas Constitution, D.W.I. suspects do not have a right to consult with counsel before an intoxilyzer test because the test is not considered a “critical stage” in proceedings. In Forte v. State, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals adopted the critical stage approach and held D.W.I. suspects do not have a right to counsel under the Texas Constitution until the filing of the complaint. The court reasoned because the statute implies consent to the test, and the suspect has no legal right to refuse the test, counsel’s presence would not serve to protect “any known right or safeguard,” …

Go to article

Fundamental Error When Rule Against Misjoinder Violated By Charging More Than One Non-Property Offense In Same Indictment Resulting In Multiple Convictions., Virginia Coyle

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

Go to article

Statutory Claims For Unfair Insurance Settlement Practices - Vail V. Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company., Joseph G. Chumlea

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Warranties, Disclaimers, Limitation Of Remedies, And The Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act., Thomas Black

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Private Cause Of Action For Unfair Insurance Claim Settlement Practices Exists Under Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act And Insurance Code., Gloria F. Christmas

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Vail v. Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, the Texas Supreme Court held a private cause of action for unfair insurance claim settlement practices exists under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Insurance Code (DTPA). The DTPA and Insurance Code have repeatedly been used against the insurance industry in the areas of first and third-party claims, particularly in cases involving sales misrepresentations and post-loss claims misconduct. The goal of DTPA is to provide adequate safeguards to aggrieved consumers and, therefore, a broad interpretation of the act allows the courts to provide consumers a remedy and deter the continuance …

Go to article

Civil Rico: Overview On The Eve Of The 200th Anniversary Of The Federal Judiciary., Dan A. Naranjo, Edward L. Pina

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

Go to article

Summary Judgments In Texas., David Hittner, Lynne Liberato

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

Go to article

Squeezing The Lemon - Helping Texas Consumers With New Car Problems., Darby Riley

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Military Contractors Who Comply With Elements Of Government Contractor Defense Are Immune From Products Liability Suits Stemming From Design Defects., Matthew J. Sullivan

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., the United States Supreme Court held military contractors who comply with the elements of the government contractor defense are immune from products liability suits stemming from design defects. Lower courts consider the government contractor defense to be a combination of two separate defenses. The first is the well-settled contract specification defense which eliminates liability for contractors who properly follow client supplied specifications. The second defense is the doctrine of shared sovereign immunity shielding the contractor from liability based on public policy concerns.

In Boyle, the Court held defective design of military equipment will not …

Go to article

Appeal No. 0298: Petro Drilling Corp. V. Ted Ford, Acting Chief, Division Of Oil And Gas,, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 88-156

Go to article

Appeal No. 0281: Pentawood, Inc. V. Ted Ford, Acting Chief, Division Of Oil And Gas,, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 87-374

Go to article

Appeal No. 0227: Buckeye Petroleum Corp. V. Chief, Division Of Oil And Gas,, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 86-549

Go to article

Appeal No. 0200: Will Of Carl J. Heltzel, V. Chief, Division Of Oil And Gas,, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 86-33

Go to article

Appeal No. 0283: Dallas Bond V. Ted Ford, Acting Chief, Division Of Oil And Gas,, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 87-395

Go to article

Appeal No. 0223: Rexplore Drilling, Inc. V. Chief, Division Of Oil And Gas,, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 86-368

Go to article