Note: Cases with hyperlinks are linked to opinions or docket information. Cases without links can be found in a law library or will require accounts with LexisNexis, Westlaw, or other electronic databases. This list is not comprehensive. Please check this site for additional case listings as the center continues to update and expand this information.
Cases on Appeal to Pennsylvania Supreme Court:
Belden & Blake Corp. v. Commonwealth of Pa., Dept. of Conservation & Natural Res., 35 MAP 2007 (appealing decision by lower court that DCNR could not place conditions on use of state forest land by the owner of that land’s subsurface mineral rights).
Cases on Appeal to Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court:
Arbor Resources Ltd. Liability Co. v. Nockamixon Twp., (appealing decision by lower court and arguing that Oil and Gas Act preemption of local regulation would make any resolution by zoning hearing board inadequate).
Pending Federal Court Decisions:
Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics v. U.S. Forest Service, 1:08-cv-323 (W.D. Pa. filed Nov. 20, 2008) (claiming that the Forest Service has been violating the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to conduct Environmental Impact Statements or Environmental Assessments prior to issuing Notices to Proceed for natural gas exploration and development activities within the Allegheny National Forest).
Hooker v. Chief Oil & Gas, 4:08-cv-02091 (W.D. Pa. filed Nov. 19, 2008) (requesting a declaration that the oil and gas lease is in violation of Pennsylvania’s Minimum Royalty Act, 58 P.S. § 33).
Beach v. MK Resource Partners, 4:08-cv-01950 (M.D. Pa. filed Oct. 24, 2008) (requesting termination of oil and gas leases based on violations of Pennsylvania’s Minimum Royalty Act, 58 P.S. § 33).
Frederick v. Range Resources – Appalachia, LLC, 1:08-cv-00288 (W.D. Pa. filed Oct. 17, 2008) (requesting injunctive relief and declaration that leases are terminated based on a violation of Pennsylvania’s Minimum Royalty Act, 58 P.S. § 33, breach of contract, conversion, and unjust enrichment).
Lauschle v. Keeton Group, LLC , 4:08-cv-01868 (M.D. Pa. filed Oct. 9, 2008) (claiming the lease agreements entered into are void because the royalty provisions of the lease agreements violate Pennsylvania’s Minimum Royalty Act, 58 P.S. § 33).
Steckman Ridge Group, LLC v. An Exclusive Natural Gas Storage Easement Beneath 100.00 Acres, More or Less, In Monroe Township, Bedford County, Commonwealth of Pa., 3:08-cv-00177-KRG (W.D. Pa filed July 15, 2008) (requesting injunctive relief in order to take land through eminent domain and the federal Natural Gas Act for a storage facility).
Pennsylvania Oil & Gas Ass’n. v. U.S. Forest Service , 1:08-cv-162 (W.D. Pa. filed May 27, 2008) (seeking a declaration that the Revised Forest Plan, which included measures to restrict oil and gas activity in the Allegheny National Forest, violates the National Environmental Policy Act and other related authorities).
Kropa v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., 3:08-cv-00551-JMM (M.D. Pa. filed Mar. 25, 2008) (alleging fraudulent inducement in natural gas lease and violation of minimum royalty statute, 58 P.S.
§ 33).
Duhring Resource Co. v. Forest Service, 1:07-cv-00314-SJM (W.D. Pa. filed Nov. 8, 2007) (alleging the U.S. Forest Service is interfering with Duhring’s ability to develop its oil and gas mineral interests).
Cases Before Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board:
Chief Oil & Gas, LLC, Case Number 2008214 (appeal filed June 27, 2008).
Range Resources – Appalachia, LLP, Case Number 2008215 (appeal filed June 27, 2008).
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decisions:
Huntley & Huntley, Inc. v. Borough of Oakmont, 30 - 31 WAP 2008 (appealing lower court decision that Oil and Gas Act preempts local regulation of areas already addressed by the act).
Range Resources v. Salem Twp., 29 WAP 2008 (appealing lower court decision that Oil and Gas Act preempted local regulations regarding oil and gas development).
Indep. Oil & Gas Ass’n of Pa. v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 814 A.2d 180 ( Pa. 2002) (oil and gas interests not subject to taxation because not specifically included in real estate that is subject to taxation).
Jacobs v. CNG Transmission Corp., 772 A.2d 445 ( Pa. 2001) (“Thus, so long as the lessee continues to pay the landowner for the opportunity to develop and produce oil or gas, the lessee need not actually drill wells.”).
U.S. Steel Corp. v. Hoge, 468 A.2d 1380 ( Pa. 1983) (owner of mineral rights may exercise control over his property in order to maximize his enjoyment of those rights so long as he does not impinge on upon the rights of other property owners; applying “Dunham’s rule”).
Silver v. Bush, 62 A. 832 ( Pa. 1906) (applying “Dunham’s rule” to natural gas).
Westmoreland & Cambria Natural Gas Co. v. Dewitt 18 A. 724 ( Pa. 1889) (articulating rule of capture in regard to oil and gas: “If an adjoining, or even distant, owner, drills his own land, and taps your gas, so that it comes into his well and under his control, it is no longer yours, but his.”).
Young v. Forest Oil Co., 45 A. 121 ( Pa. 1899) (summarizing that if a well pays a profit over operating expenses the well is producing in paying quantities).
Chartiers Block Coal Co. v. Mellon, 25 A. 597 ( Pa. 1893) (owning mineral rights provides that owner with the right to occupy as much of the surface estate as might be necessary, exercising this right with due regard to the surface estate owner).
Dunham & Shortt v. Kirkpatrick, 101 Pa. 36 (1882) (articulating “Dunham’s rule,” which states that a reservation of “all minerals” in a deed does not include oil).
Caldwell v. Fulton, 31 Pa. 475 (1858) (“Coal and minerals in place are land. It is no longer to be doubted that they are subject to conveyance as such.”).
Pennsylvania Superior Court Decisions:
T.W. Phillips Gas and Oil Co. v. Jedlicka, No. 1918 WDA 2007, 2008 WL 5390464 ( Pa. Super.
Dec. 29, 2008) (ruling that the phrase “produced in paying quantities” is to be determined by the
gas company so long as this determination is made in good faith and not for the purpose of
“holding the land for purely speculative purposes”).
Hetrick v. Apollo Gas Co., 608 A.2d 1074 ( Pa. Super. Ct. 1992) (providing that “unused free gas allotments are not cumulative prior to the time the lessor puts himself ‘at or about the well’”).
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Decisions:
Belden & Blake Corp. v. Commonwealth of Pa., Dept. of Conservation & Natural Res., No. 25 M.D. 2006 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007) (allowing corporation to exercise its easement-holder’s right of access on state lands).
Great Lakes Energy Ptnrs. v. Salem Twp., 931 A.2d 101 ( Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007) (determining that Pennsylvania’s Oil and Gas Act preempted the township’s oil and gas ordinance).
Huntley & Huntley, Inc. v. Borough of Oakmont, 929 A.2d 1252 ( Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007) (Oil and Gas Act does not preempt all local regulation but does preempt those regulations addressing features of the act).
Wending Creek 3656, LLC v. Potter County Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 885 A.2d 690 ( Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005) (rollback taxes on Clean and Green lands cannot be imposed until a change in use of the land has occurred).
Einsing v. Pennsylvania Mines Corp., 452 A.2d 558 ( Pa. Commw. Ct. 1982) (allowing an oil driller to drill a well through a coal mine owned by a different company in order to provide the driller with lawful use of his mineral estate).
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas Decisions:
Arbor Resources Ltd. Liability Co. v. Nockamixon Twp., No. 2008-4801-31-1 (Bucks Co. 2008) (directing plaintiffs to take complaint to municipality’s zoning hearing board for an initial ruling before brining the matter to court).
Fox v. Wainoco Oil & Gas Co., 46 Pa. D. & C.3d 439 (Crawford Co. 1986) (drilling of a well on any tract in a unit satisfies the habendum clause of each tract in the unit and continues the lease so long as oil and gas are produced).
Mitchell Energy Corp. v. Stagl, 27 Pa. D. & C.3d 132 (Crawford Co. 1983) (“A producing gas well continues as a producing gas well as long as it is properly connected and capable of producing gas whether or not gas is actually flowing out of the well to the purchaser.”).
Federal District Court Decisions:
U.S. v. Minard Run Oil Co., 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9570 *1 (W.D. Pa. 1980) (providing reasonable advance notice to government required for company with mineral rights under Allegheny National Forest).
|
