Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons^™

Appeal No. 0634: Michael Schafer V. Donald L. Mason, Chief, Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 97-159 (Everflow Eastern)

Appeal No. 0607: Kenneth Parrill, Dba Hoyp-Parrill Company V. Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 96-91 & Chief's Order 97-1

Appeal No. 0619: Halwell Company, Cinc. (B.T. Energy Corporation) V. Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 97-76

Appeal No. 0633: North Coast Energy, Inc. V. Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Order 97-154

Appeal No. 0637: Robert W. Barr, Dba Big Sky Petroluem V. Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Order 97-201

Appeal No. 0627: Barclay Petroleum, Inc. V. Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 97-117

Appeal No. 0615: Donald E. Wood V. Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 97-63

Appeal No. 0613: Poston Operating Co., V. Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 97-28

Appeal No. 0623: Max Becker, Dba Ruma, Inc. V. Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 97-102

Appeal No. 0617: Halwell Company, Inc. V. Donald L. Mason, Chief, Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 97-66

Appeal No. 0620: Halwell Company (Bt Energy Corporation) V. Donald L. Mason, Chief, Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 97-83

Appeal No. 0621: Halwell Company, Inc. V. Donald L. Mason, Chief, Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 97-84

Appeal No. 0616: Halwell Company, Inc. V. Donald L. Mason, Chief, Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 97-62

Appeal No. 0630: Kilbarger Construction, Inc. V. Donald L. Mason, Chief, Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 97-140

Appeal No. 0622: Alsid Oil & Gas Development Co. V. Donald L. Mason, Chief, Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 97-77

Appeal No. 0631: Calvin & Paula Adkins V. Donald L. Mason, Chief, Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 97-152 (Cabot Oil & Gas)

Appeal No. 0628: Halwell Company. Inc. V. Donald L. Mason, Chief, Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 97-120

Cost Responsibility Or Regulatory Indulgence For Electricity's Stranded Costs? , John Burritt Mcarthur

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Drainage, Drilling Units And Conservation Agency Orders: Sunbelt Exploration Co. V. Stephens Production Co., Phillip E. Norvell

Annual of the Arkansas Natural Resources Law Institute

No abstract provided.

Receiverships And Integration: A Primer On Acquiring The Rights To Develop The Interest Of A Lost Or Recalcitrant Mineral Owner, Carolyn J. Clegg

Annual of the Arkansas Natural Resources Law Institute

No abstract provided.

Trends In Environmental Liabilitiy For The Oil & Gas Industry: Environmental Liability Developments For Oil And Gas Operators, Charles C. Steincamp

Annual of the Arkansas Natural Resources Law Institute

No abstract provided.

Current Issues In Oil And Gas Royalty Litigation, Mark D. Christiansen

Annual of the Arkansas Natural Resources Law Institute

No abstract provided.

Recent Developments: A Review Of New Cases, Legislation, & Regulations Affecting The Natural Resources Industries, Thomas A. Daily

Annual of the Arkansas Natural Resources Law Institute

No abstract provided.

Resource Law Notes Newsletter, No. 42, Winter Issue, Feb. 1998, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

Resource Law Notes: The Newsletter of the Natural Resources Law Center (1984-2002)

No abstract provided.

Foreigners In Their Own Land: Cultural Land And Transnational Corporations---Emergent International Rights And Wrongs, Martin A. Geer

Scholarly Works

Unique and vital components of human culture and the environment are struggling for survival in the Amazon River basin. The rain forest of Amazonia is shared by indigenous peoples and an immensely diverse tropical flora and fauna. This unique culture and physical ecology, however, is threatened by transnational oil corporations which are irreparably devastating Amazonia and its native cultures through oil production activities.

The failure of public international law to address the post World War II emergence of transnational corporations (TNCs) as a major international force has been the subject of significant review by scholars and policy makers. TNCs, often …

Indictments And Informations In Texas: The Conduct/Evidence Pleading Conundrum., Robert R. Barton

St. Mary's Law Journal

In the prosecution of a criminal case in Texas, the State’s primary pleading is an indictment or information. In an indictment or information, there are two basic rules for the charging of an offense. First, the defendant must be given adequate notice to prepare a defense and to plead the judgment from the trial of the case in bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. Second, the State is not required to plead evidentiary matters. The simplicity of these rules exists more in their statement than in their application because circumstances exist which require the State to plead …

Voluntary Intoxication As A Mitigating Circumstance During The Death Penalty Sentencing Phase: A Proposal For Reform Comment., Jeffrey A. Walsh

St. Mary's Law Journal

When the State of Texas seeks the death penalty against a defendant, the trial court conducts a sentencing proceeding under Article 37.071 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. This proceeding determines whether the defendant will receive the death penalty. During deliberation, the jury must consider all mitigating evidence. The defendant may claim his voluntary intoxication as a mitigating factor. Under Tex. Pen. Code § 8.04(b), the court instructs the jury to consider evidence of voluntary intoxication only if it rendered the defendant temporarily insane. Although Article 37.071 calls upon juries to consider “all” mitigating evidence, a Section 8.04 instruction …

The Impending Wave Of Legal Malpractice Litigation - Predictions, Analysis, And Proposals For Change., Gary N. Schumann, Scott B. Herlihy

St. Mary's Law Journal

Attorneys tend to be viewed antithetically, at once both greedy and manipulative, but also respected and admired. Given this odd mixture of respect and disdain, attorneys are fortunate to have generally avoided being targets as potential defendants. Nevertheless, circumstances in Texas have changed, creating a new legal climate wherein attorneys may soon become defendants of choice. Attorneys in Texas are at a significantly greater risk of becoming the subject of a malpractice suit than they were in the past. Yet, simply because statistics indicate an increase in the number of malpractice claims, this does not mean more malpractice is being …

The React Security Belt: Stunning Prisoners And Human Rights Groups Into Questioning Whether Its Use Is Permissible Under The United States And Texas Constitutions Comment., Shelley A. Nieto Dahlberg

St. Mary's Law Journal

The Remote Electronically Activated Control Technology (REACT) belt infringes upon criminal defendants’ and prisoners’ fundamental rights; therefore, it cannot withstand judicial scrutiny under the United States and Texas Constitutions. This Comment attempts to address and answer issues regarding the REACT belt. The belt constitutes cruel and unusual punishment with the potential to deprive prisoners of their due process rights. The belt disrupts attorney-client communication and destroys a criminal defendant’s presumption of innocence. Furthermore, other alternatives provide effective means to prevent unruly prisoners from destroying the integrity of the courts. Part II of this Comment discusses how the belt works, and …

Oil And Gas Liens & Foreclosures--A Multi-State Perspective, Terry I. Cross, Jason T. Barnes

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.