Lloyd D. Savoy v. Tidewater Oil Company

Fifth Circuit

Lloyd D. Savoy v. Tidewater Oil Company

326 F.2d 757

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 19, 1964

Docket20896_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 326 F.2d 757 (Lloyd D. Savoy v. Tidewater Oil Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lloyd D. Savoy v. Tidewater Oil Company, 326 F.2d 757 (5th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellant brought this diversity-action to cancel a mineral lease owned by appellee on 20.28 acres, more or less, belonging to appellant and located in Vermilion Parish, Louisiana, and to recover monetary damages for drainage. His contention was that the appellee failed to use diligence in developing the tract and in protecting it from drainage by procuring an order from the Commissioner of Conservation of the State of Louisiana creating a single reservoir-wide unit for the Broussard Oil Sand in the Erath Field, of which the 20.28 acres was a part. The suit was necessarily a collateral attack on the order of the Commissioner.

The trial court granted the appellee’s motion for summary judgment for the reasons set out in his well considered opinion in Savoy v. Tidewater Oil Co., D. C., W.D., La., 218 F.Supp. 607.

We are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court is correct, and it is therefore Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The appellant brought this diversity-action to cancel a mineral lease owned by appellee on 20.28 acres, more or less, belonging to appellant and located in Vermilion Parish, Louisiana, and to recover monetary damages for drainage. His contention was that the appellee failed to use diligence in developing the tract and in protecting it from drainage by procuring an order from the Commissioner of Conservation of the State of Louisiana creating a single reservoir-wide unit for the Broussard Oil Sand in the Erath Field, of which the 20.28 acres was a part. The suit was necessarily a collateral attack on the order of the Commissioner.

The trial court granted the appellee’s motion for summary judgment for the reasons set out in his well considered opinion in Savoy v. Tidewater Oil Co., D. C., W.D., La., 218 F.Supp. 607.

We are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court is correct, and it is therefore Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 F.2d 757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lloyd-d-savoy-v-tidewater-oil-company-ca5-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack