Laborde Properties, L.P. and Laborde Management, LLC v. U.S. Shale Energy II, LLC, and Raymond B. Roush, Ruthie Roush Dodge, and David E. Roush

Court of Appeals of Texas

Laborde Properties, L.P. and Laborde Management, LLC v. U.S. Shale Energy II, LLC, and Raymond B. Roush, Ruthie Roush Dodge, and David E. Roush

533 S.W.3d 447

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 28, 2016

Docket04-16-00168-CV

StatusPublished

This text of 533 S.W.3d 447 (Laborde Properties, L.P. and Laborde Management, LLC v. U.S. Shale Energy II, LLC, and Raymond B. Roush, Ruthie Roush Dodge, and David E. Roush) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Laborde Properties, L.P. and Laborde Management, LLC v. U.S. Shale Energy II, LLC, and Raymond B. Roush, Ruthie Roush Dodge, and David E. Roush, 533 S.W.3d 447 (Tex. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

DISSENTING OPINION

Opinion Dissenting To the Denial op Appellees’ Motion fob En Banc Reconsideration

Dissenting Opinion by:

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The panel opinion gives no effect to the deed’s reservation of “an undivided one-half (1/2) interest” in “the” royalty and fails to adhere to longstanding harmonization principles. The panel opinion also misapplies the estate misconception theory by holding the theory supports finding a fixed interest. As a result of misinterpreting the deed’s reservation,-.the panel opinion conflicts with prior decisions .of this court, the Supreme Court of Texas, and other courts of appeals. E.g., Hysaw v. Dawkins, 483 S.W.3d 1, 12 (Tex. 2016); Graham v. Prochaska, 429 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. denied); Coghill v. Griffith, 358 S.W.3d 834, 840 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2012, pet. denied); Hausser v. Cuellar, 345 S.W.3d 462 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, pet. denied) (op. on en banc reh’g). Because the panel opinion creates title uncertainty and will likely .generate future title disputes, en banc reconsideration is necessary. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.2(c). I therefore respectfully dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DISSENTING OPINION

Opinion Dissenting To the Denial op Appellees’ Motion fob En Banc Reconsideration

Dissenting Opinion by:

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The panel opinion gives no effect to the deed’s reservation of “an undivided one-half (1/2) interest” in “the” royalty and fails to adhere to longstanding harmonization principles. The panel opinion also misapplies the estate misconception theory by holding the theory supports finding a fixed interest. As a result of misinterpreting the deed’s reservation,-.the panel opinion conflicts with prior decisions .of this court, the Supreme Court of Texas, and other courts of appeals. E.g., Hysaw v. Dawkins, 483 S.W.3d 1, 12 (Tex. 2016); Graham v. Prochaska, 429 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. denied); Coghill v. Griffith, 358 S.W.3d 834, 840 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2012, pet. denied); Hausser v. Cuellar, 345 S.W.3d 462 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, pet. denied) (op. on en banc reh’g). Because the panel opinion creates title uncertainty and will likely .generate future title disputes, en banc reconsideration is necessary. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.2(c). I therefore respectfully dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

533 S.W.3d 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laborde-properties-lp-and-laborde-management-llc-v-us-shale-energy-texapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack