A group of individuals, that filed suit against a company related to ownership in a mineral lease, was able to show a proposed change could cure any legal issues.

In this employment retaliation case, the court further explained its holdings in Texas Department of Human Services v. Hinds and Office of Attorney General v. Rodriguez.

A corporation, that was ordered to pay $4.8 million in attorneys' fees, was able to prove the trial court erred in that decision.

The parties entered into several joint operating agreements, one of which involved the expansion of a natural gas processing facility and another involved drilling a well.

This appeal arose in the context of competing oil-and-gas leases covering acreage in Loving County, Texas.

In 2001, petitioners purchased several assets from respondent, including oil and gas wells, mineral leases and fee interests.

A divided Fifth Circuit, which reconsidered nearly a dozen constitutional issues related to the Indian Child Welfare Act, could only set precedent for a few issues.

Appellant filed suit against a number of parties to protect oil and gas leasehold rights and sought a declaratory judgment on its invocation of a force majeure clause to extend a drilling deadline.

Appellee was arrested for driving under the influence after fleeing the scene of an accident while intoxicated.