Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons^™

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 0641: Boocor Producing V. Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Order 97-204

Appeal No. 0583: Kenneth Parrill, Dba Hoyt-Parrill Company V. Donald L. Mason, Chief, Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 96-61 & Chief's Order 97-1

Appeal No. 0618: 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 97-78

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. 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

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. 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. 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. 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. 0627: Barclay Petroleum, Inc. V. Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 97-117

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.

Hydraulic Fracturing: Stimulating Your Well Or Trespassing?, Laura H. Burney

Faculty CLE

Many courts may determine hydraulic fracturing to be an impermissible trespass. Hydraulic fracturing is a common method used to increase production from oil and gas wells. However, the extent of wellbore fractures can only be determined by theoretical calculations. This reality affects the application of the legal doctrines of the rule of capture, common law trespass, and implied covenants in the oil and gas lease. When these controversies reach the court, a traditional policy conflict is also at play: whether to protect property rights or to encourage oil and gas production.

Without express legislative endorsement of fracturing as promoting valuable …

Victims' Rights And The Death-Sentenced Inmate: Some Observations And Thoughts Symposium: Thoughts On Death Penalty Issues 25 Years After Furman V. Georgia., Susan L. Karamanian

St. Mary's Law Journal

The concept of “victims’ rights” refers to the movement from the 1950s which focuses on enhancing the role of the victim in the criminal process. The movement changed dramatically the manner in which capital cases are investigated and prosecuted. Prosecutors may work with the victims’ families on whether to accept a plea bargain or whether to seek the death penalty. The victims’ families may now also provide victim impact statements to let their own suffering influence the jury during the sentencing phase. The right of the victim’s family to have a say in the process does not end with the …

Victims' Rights And The Constitution: Moving From Guaranteeing Participatory Rights To Benefiting The Prosecution Symposium: Thoughts On Death Penalty Issues 25 Years After Furman V. Georgia., Robert P. Mosteller

St. Mary's Law Journal

Supporters of victims’ rights can be broadly grouped into three categories according to their basic goals. One category seeks to guarantee participatory rights in a governmental process (“Participatory Rights”). A second category of support for the victims’ rights amendment comes from those who are animated by a pro-prosecution, anti-defendant perspective on criminal law and procedure (“Prosecutorial Benefit”). The third group supporting victims’ rights is comprised of those who demand greater protection and support for victims by the government (“Victim Protection and Aid”). The first serious attempt to amend the United States Constitution on behalf of crime victims happened in 1982. …

Texas Groundwater: Reconciling The Rule Of Capture With Environmental And Community Demands Comment., Stephanie E. Hayes Lusk

St. Mary's Law Journal

In order to avert the depletion of water resources, many states have attempted to enact legislation aimed at promoting water conservation. Such legislation has been known to conflict with outdated principles of property ownership, namely the rule of capture. The rule of capture vests landowners with property rights in water located directly beneath their land. Texas categorizes water based on whether the water flows above or below the surface. Surface water is typically the property of the state, with property owners having no possessory interest in the surface water. Yet, the opposite is true for groundwater, where all rights to …

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 …