MM Resources, Inc. v. Huston

6 Citing cases

  1. GHK Exploration Co. v. Tenneco Oil Co.

    847 F.2d 650 (10th Cir. 1988)   Cited 6 times
    In Tenneco, as in the case at bar, the issue before this Court was the proper forum for deciding whether one of the parties had properly elected to participate in the drilling of a well.

    The Oklahoma Supreme Court has frequently been asked to delineate the jurisdictional boundary between the Commission and the courts when dealing with forced-pooling orders. See Samson Resources Co. v. Oklahoma Corp. Comm'n, 742 P.2d 1114 (Okla. 1987); Nilsen v. Ports of Call Oil Co., 711 P.2d 98 (Okla. 1985); MM Resources, Inc. v. Huston, 710 P.2d 763 (Okla. 1985); Drake v. Southwest Davis Unit, 698 P.2d 15 (Okla. 1985); Tenneco Oil Co. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 687 P.2d 1049 (Okla. 1984); Amarex, Inc. v. Baker, 655 P.2d 1040 (Okla. 1982); Woods Petroleum Corp. v. Sledge, 632 P.2d 393 (Okla. 1981); Crest Resources Exploration Corp. v. Corporation Comm'n, 617 P.2d 215 (Okla. 1980); Stipe v. Theus, 603 P.2d 347 (Okla. 1979); Southern Union Prod. Co. v. Corporation Comm'n, 465 P.2d 454 (Okla. 1970). The general rule that has come from these cases is that the Commission has jurisdiction to interpret, clarify, amend and supplement its own orders and to resolve any challenges to "the public issue of conservation of oil and gas."

  2. Hadson Petro. v. Jack Grynberg Assoc

    763 P.2d 87 (Okla. 1988)   Cited 1 times

    Under the terms of a pooling order wherein the Oklahoma Corporation Commission specifically reserves jurisdiction to determine reasonableness of well costs in the event of a subsequent dispute, does the Corporation Commission, a tribunal of limited jurisdiction, have exclusive jurisdiction to determine reasonable drilling costs of an oil and gas well and grant appropriate relief as between the operator designated in the pooling order and another working interest owner who did not elect under the pooling order but entered into a private contractual agreement for the drilling and operation of the well? The question certified is closely coupled to the issues discussed in Tenneco Oil Co. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 687 P.2d 1049 (Okla. 1984), and the succeeding cases of Samson Resources Co. v. Corporation Commission, 702 P.2d 19 (Okla. 1985), MM Resources, Inc. v. Huston, 710 P.2d 763 (Okla. 1985), and Nilsen v. Ports of Call Oil Co., 711 P.2d 98 (Okla. 1985). In these cases this Court delineated the respective rolls of the district court and Corporation Commission in disputes arising out of operations involving the pooling of interests for the development of oil and gas.

  3. Leck v. Continental Oil Co.

    1989 OK 173 (Okla. 1990)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that lessors' "action for damages for the lessee's alleged breach of an implied covenant to protect from drainage [was] a private action arising from their contract and [did] not involve the correlative rights of the 'public'"

    In other words, the commission's jurisdiction is limited to protection of public rights in development and production of oil and gas.Leede Oil Gas v. Corporation Commission, Okla., 747 P.2d 294 (1987); Samson Resources Co. v. Corporation Commission and TXO Production Corp., Okla., 742 P.2d 1114 (1987); Nilsen v. Ports of Call Oil Co., Okla., 711 P.2d 98 (1985); MM Resources, Inc. v. Huston, Okla., 710 P.2d 763 (1985); Samson Resources Co. v. Corporation Commission, Okla., 702 P.2d 19 (1985); and Tenneco Oil Co. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., Okla., 687 P.2d 1049 (1984).Nilsen, 711 P.2d at 103; Samson, 702 P.2d at 21; Tenneco, 687 P.2d at 1052.

  4. Leede Oil Gas v. Corporation Com'n

    1987 OK 117 (Okla. 1987)   Cited 7 times

    702 P.2d 19 (Okla. 1985). 710 P.2d 763 (Okla. 1985). 711 P.2d 98 (Okla. 1985).

  5. Samson Resources v. Okl. Corp. Com'n

    1987 OK 73 (Okla. 1987)   Cited 19 times
    In Samson Resources v. Okl. Corp. Com'n, 742 P.2d 1114 (Okla. 1987), the court held that the OCC, rather than the state district court, had jurisdiction to decide whether Samson had timely elected under a forced-pooling order of the OCC to participate in the development of an oil and gas well. Samson relied on Tenneco Oil Co. v. El Paso Natural Gas, 687 P.2d 1049 (Okla. 1984) for the proposition that the OCC had no jurisdiction to entertain disputes over the status of elections under pooling orders.

    In two cases decided after Tenneco, this Court also found that the district court was the proper forum for the disputing parties. In both Samson Resources Co. v. Corporation Comm'n, 702 P.2d 19 (Okla. 1985), and MM Resources, Inc. v. Huston, 710 P.2d 763 (Okla. 1985), as in Tenneco, the issues involved the construction of private contracts between the parties. In all three of the cases cited this Court found that no issue of public interest was involved and that therefore the Corporation Commission was without jurisdiction in the matter.

  6. Union Texas Petroleum Corp. v. Jackson

    909 P.2d 131 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995)   Cited 16 times
    In Union Central Petroleum, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission ("OCC") brought an administrative enforcement action against several oil companies that allegedly contributed to saltwater contamination in Cyril, Oklahoma by operation of a well.

    The district courts, not the Corporation Commission, have the jurisdiction to provide a plaintiff with a remedy, including damages, for injury from oil and gas saltwater contamination. Greyhound Leasing Financial Corp. v. Joiner City Unit, 444 F.2d 439 (10th Cir. 1971); Commercial Drilling Co. v. Kennedy, 172 Okla. 475, 45 P.2d 534 (1935); Tidal Oil Co. v. Pease, 153 Okla. 137, 5 P.2d 389 (1931); MM Resources, Inc. v. A.L. Huston, 710 P.2d 763 (Okla. 1985). Saltwater contamination from oil and gas operations occurring from violations of Commission rules are referred to as nuisances.