Last month I blogged about Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (10-1062), the case involving pre-enforcement judicial review of compliance orders under the Clean Water Act that will be argued before the United States Supreme Court this term. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Hearing, Decisions of Note, Due Process, Enforcement Action, Informal Agency Action, ISRA, Leases, New Jersey, Real Estate

On September 23, the Petitioners filed their opening brief  in the case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (10-1062), one of two environmental cases on the United States Supreme Court’s docket for the upcoming term.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Procedures Act, Cases to Watch, Clean Water Act, Due Process, Enforcement Action, Real Estate, Wetlands

On September 7, 2011, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued its decision in Butler v. Estate of Powers, 2011 Pa Super 198, sending the case back to the trial court to decide, in short, who owns the natural gas in the Marcellus Shale formation — the owner of the mineral rights, or the owner of the oil and gas rights. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cases to Watch, Deeds, Leases, Marcellus Shale, Mineral Rights, Oil and Gas, Real Estate

Last fall we wrote about the decision in Butler v. Estate of Powers in which the Pennsylvania Superior Court appeared to overturn more than 100 years of case law to cast doubt on whether the natural gas found in shale is a “mineral” for purposes of deed interpretation.  We called it a “Case to Watch,” and it looks like we were right because earlier this month the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cases to Watch, Drilling, Leases, Marcellus Shale, Mineral Rights, Oil and Gas, Real Estate

On January 4, 2011, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued its opinion in Hite v. Falcon Partners, No. 197 WDA 2010, 2011 PA Super 2, holding that productive activities at premises leased for oil and gas activity were essential for the lessee to retain control of the property after the primary lease period, even though the oil and gas lease provided for an indefinite extension of the lease upon the payment of small delay rental payments. Relying on long-standing case law, the Court determined that despite the “unusual” wording of the lease at issue, the equitable principles that require such leases to be interpreted to promote development of the land and resources for the benefit of both the lessor and the lessee remained paramount. Importantly, though, both the lower court and the Superior Court left a slight opening for lessees. The trial court opined that an indefinite period for exploration was not completely foreclosed to lessees, but that the lease language must be “clear and unequivocal.” Similarly, the Superior Court noted that a lessee who wished to preserve exploration rights could enter into a lease with a significantly longer primary term. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Decisions of Note, Drilling, Exploration, Leases, Oil and Gas, Real Estate, Royalties