Union Pacific Resources Co. v. Hutchison

Texas Supreme Court

Union Pacific Resources Co. v. Hutchison

986 S.W.2d 610, 42 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 355, 1999 Tex. LEXIS 8

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 4, 1999

DocketNo. 98-0445

StatusPublished

This text of 986 S.W.2d 610 (Union Pacific Resources Co. v. Hutchison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Union Pacific Resources Co. v. Hutchison, 986 S.W.2d 610, 42 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 355, 1999 Tex. LEXIS 8 (Tex. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Respondent royalty interest owners sued petitioner Union Pacific Resources Company for tortiously interfering with their royalty interest by causing the termination of the underlying oil and gas lease. The district court rendered summary judgment for Union Pacific, concluding that respondents’ action was barred by limitations. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the discovery rule applied to defer the accrual of the respondents’ cause of action until the date they discovered or should have discovered their injury. We believe that the court of appeals should have the opportunity to reconsider the rulings of which petitioner complains in this proceeding in light of our recent opinion in HECI v. Neel, 982 S.W.2d 881 (Tex.1998). Accordingly, the Court grants Union Pacific’s petition for review, and without reference to the merits, vacates the judgment of the court of appeals and remands the case to that court for further consideration. Tex.R.App. P. 59.1.

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

PER CURIAM.

Respondent royalty interest owners sued petitioner Union Pacific Resources Company for tortiously interfering with their royalty interest by causing the termination of the underlying oil and gas lease. The district court rendered summary judgment for Union Pacific, concluding that respondents’ action was barred by limitations. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the discovery rule applied to defer the accrual of the respondents’ cause of action until the date they discovered or should have discovered their injury. We believe that the court of appeals should have the opportunity to reconsider the rulings of which petitioner complains in this proceeding in light of our recent opinion in HECI v. Neel, 982 S.W.2d 881 (Tex.1998). Accordingly, the Court grants Union Pacific’s petition for review, and without reference to the merits, vacates the judgment of the court of appeals and remands the case to that court for further consideration. Tex.R.App. P. 59.1.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

986 S.W.2d 610, 42 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 355, 1999 Tex. LEXIS 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-pacific-resources-co-v-hutchison-tex-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack