Bradley v. Avery

10 Citing cases

  1. Allegiance Exploration, LLC v. Davis

    NO. 02-13-00349-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 24, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    Id. Bradley v. Avery, 746 S.W.2d 341, 344, 345 (Tex. App.โ€”Austin 1988, no writ) (explaining the difference between ratification and revivor). Id.; see also Westbrook v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 502 S.W.2d 551, 556 (Tex. 1973).

  2. Natural Gas Pipeline v. Pool

    30 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. App. 2000)   Cited 20 times

    The burden is upon a lessee to prove that a cessation of production fell within the temporary cessation doctrine. Bradley v. Avery, 746 S.W.2d 341, 343 (Tex.App.-Austin 1988, no writ). Furthermore, no analysis of whether production was in paying quantities is necessary if the evidence establishes no production at all.

  3. Cobb v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America

    897 F.2d 1307 (5th Cir. 1990)   Cited 12 times
    Holding lessee must exercise diligence in resuming production

    Natural had the burden of proof to establish that the reason for the cessation of production was the equivalent of a sudden stoppage of the well or some mechanical breakdown or "the like." Bradley v. Avery, 746 S.W.2d 341, 343 (Tex.App. โ€” Austin 1988, no writ). Although there were other shorter instances of non-production at different times, Plaintiffs sought cancellation only for cessations in excess of sixty days, and findings were neither requested nor made with respect to shorter periods.

  4. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Pool

    124 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. 2003)   Cited 183 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a record titleholder's ignorance of what it owns does not affect the running of limitations"

    The burden then shifts to the lessee to prove that the cessation was excused by the TCOP doctrine. Cobb v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of Am., 897 F.2d 1307, 1310-11 (5th Cir. 1990); Bradley v. Avery, 746 S.W.2d 341, 343 (Tex.App.-Austin 1988, no writ); 1 Smith Weaver, Texas Law of Oil and Gas ยง 4.4(b) (1994). We have applied a two-pronged test for determining whether a cessation of production falls under the TCOP doctrine and thus is legally excused from the automatic termination rule.

  5. Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America v. Pool

    120 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. 2003)   Cited 3 times

    The burden then shifts to the lessee to prove that the cessation was excused by the TCOP doctrine. Cobb v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of Am., 897 F.2d 1307, 1310-11 (5th Cir. 1990); Bradley v. Avery, 746 S.W.2d 341, 343 (Tex.App.-Austin 1988, no writ); 1 Smith Weaver, Texas Law of Oil and Gas 4.4(b) (1994). We have applied a two-pronged test for determining whether a cessation of production falls under the TCOP doctrine and thus is legally excused from the automatic termination rule.

  6. Sun-Key Oil Co v. Whealy

    No. 02-06-198-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 2, 2006)   Cited 1 times

    Cannon v. Sun-Key Oil Co., Inc., 117 S.W.3d 416, 419 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2003, pet. denied).Bradley v. Avery, 746 S.W.2d 341, 344 (Tex.App.-Austin 1988, no writ).Id. (citing 2 HOWARD R. WILLIAMS CHARLES J. MEYERS, OIL AND GAS LAW, ยง 340.04, at 256 (1986)).

  7. Krabbe v. Anadarko Petr. Corp.

    46 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. App. 2001)   Cited 36 times
    Holding that, under a Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act proceeding to decide the status of an automatic termination provision in an oil and gas lease, any error in permitting trespass-to-try-title claim under the UDJA may be waived absent objection to that procedure

    The burden is on the lessee to prove that the cessation in production fell within the temporary cessation doctrine. Bradley v. Avery, 746 S.W.2d 341, 343 (Tex.App.-Austin 1988, no writ). B. Analysis 1. Legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence

  8. Anadarko Pet. v. Thompson

    60 S.W.3d 134 (Tex. App. 2001)   Cited 4 times

    Detriment is required when the document cited as reviving another lacks an express grant. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Pool, No. 07-99-0428-CV, slip op. at 11, 2000 LEXIS 6902 at 11; Exploracion De La Estrella, 858 S.W.2d at 554; Bradley v. Avery 746 S.W.2d 341, 344 (Tex.App.-Austin 1988, no writ). The division order before us contains no such words of grant.

  9. Natural Gas Pipeline v. Pool

    30 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. App. 2000)   Cited 5 times

    The burden was upon appellants to prove that the cessation of production fell within that doctrine. Bradley v. Avery, 746 S.W.2d 341, 343 (Tex.App.-Austin 1988, no writ). Appellants contend that due to the lapse of somewhere between 14 years (assuming the leases terminated at the most recent cessation in 1984) and 57 years (assuming the leases terminated at the earliest cessation in 1941) since the leases experienced cessations in production, they are unable to locate documents and witnesses to defend against the claims of appellees.

  10. Exploracion Solo. v. Birdwell

    858 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. App. 1993)   Cited 16 times
    Explaining that for repudiation to apply, the agreement must still be active; if the agreement has already terminated, then repudiation cannot excuse the party's nonperformance nor perpetuate the agreement

    Westbrook v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 502 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. 1973); Loeffler v. King, 149 Tex. 626, 236 S.W.2d 772 (1951); McVey v. Hill, 691 S.W.2d 67, 71 (Tex.App. โ€” Austin 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.); George T. Bond, Note, Revival and Ratification of Leases โ€” Synonyms or Antonyms?, 26 Baylor L.Rev. 455 (1974). In Bradley v. Avery, 746 S.W.2d 341 (Tex.App. โ€” Austin 1988, no writ), the court, citing 4 Williams and Meyers, Oil and Gas Law, ยง 709 (1986), suggested that, in the absence of an express grant, a terminated oil and gas lease may be revived by the mere execution of division orders only if detrimental reliance is found on the part of the lessee. The division orders were on forms provided by Permian (the crude oil purchaser), were dated February 7, 1990, and were signed after the cessation of production. Mrs. Birdwell and Mrs. McGlaun stated that they executed the division orders to recover monies held in suspense by the purchaser for prior production in 1987 and 1988.