Legal
Watch
Texas v. Environmental Protection Agency
Texas
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is considering a challenge by states and industry groups to the Environmental Protection Agency’s latest greenhouse gas standards for cars and light trucks. The case is State of Texas v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23- 60069. Initially filed by Texas in February and later joined by fossil fuel and chemical industry groups and the states of Mississippi and Louisiana, the lawsuit contends the EPA’s rejection was an illegal attempt to force federal rules onto the state.
The Clean Air Act requires states to submit plans to reduce pollution from power plants and other industries that can significantly impact air quality in other states. Plans submitted by 19 states (including Texas, California, Illinois, Alabama, Oklahoma and others) were rejected by the EPA in February. EPA also partially rejected plans submitted by Minnesota and Wisconsin. According to the EPA, many of the proposed rules contained “no permanent and enforceable emissions controls.” If no revised proposals are submitted by the states, the federal government may craft its own rules.
Legal
Updates Articles are not intended to be and should not be relied upon as legal advice or to establish any kind of an attorney-client relationship with the author.
King Operating Corp. v. Double Eagle Andrews, LLC No. 11-19-00336-CV, 2021 WL 4598819 (Tex. App.-Eastland, Oct. 7, 2021)
Texas
The Eastland Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of Double Eagle Andrews, stating that all references to the ‘leased premises’ must be read consistent- ly throughout the lease, including the habendum clause. Facts: There were four tracts of land in Scurry County, Texas that were owned as follows: The Robisons owned a fifty percent mineral inter- est in tract 1 and one hundred percent of the mineral in- terest in tracts 2, 3, and 4. The Robisons executed a lease that covered the “leased premises”, defined as including all
of tracts 1, 2, 3 and 4.
The Williams’ owned the other half of the mineral interest in tract 1 and all of the executive rights in tract 1. The Williams’ lease only covered tract 1. King Operating (King), successor to the original lessee, drilled a producing well on tract 1 during the primary term of the lease, but did not drill on tracts 2, 3 or 4. After the primary term, the Robison lessors executed a new lease for their interest in tracts 2 and 3 with Double Eagle Andrews (DEA). When King filed a permit appli-
8
N at i onal A ssociation of D i v i s i on O rder A nalys t s
Made with FlippingBook. PDF to flipbook with ease