Oil, Gas and Minerals

Sandvick v. LaCrosse , 2008 ND 77, 747 N.W.2d 519
The crucial elements of a partnership are (1) an intention to be partners, (2) co-ownership of the business, and (3) a profit motive.
For a business enterprise to constitute a joint venture, the following four elements must be present: (1) contribution by the parties of money, property, time, or skill in some common undertaking, but the contributions need not be equal or of the same nature; (2) a proprietary interest and right of mutual control over the engaged property; (3) an express or implied agreement for the sharing of profits, and usually, but not necessarily, of losses; and (4) an express or implied contract showing a joint venture was formed. There is, however, no fixed formula for identifying the joint venture relationship in all cases, and each case will depend upon its own unique facts.
Principles of partnership law apply to the joint venture relationship.
Joint venturers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty.
Van Sickle v. Hallmark & Assoc., Inc. , 2008 ND 12, 744 N.W.2d 532
A debt cannot be discharged in bankruptcy unless the creditor received notice of the bankruptcy proceedings.
State and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction to decide whether a creditor's claim has been discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding if the creditor claims he did not have notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy proceeding.
Claims for conversion and breach of contract may arise under the same facts if the defendant's conduct would give rise to liability independent of the fact that a contract exists between the parties.
A claim for tortious interference ordinarily requires a showing that a person who is not a party to the contract interfered with the contract.
The Supreme Court does not issue advisory opinions.
Ritter, Laber & Assoc. v. Koch Oil , 2007 ND 163, 740 N.W.2d 67
A party seeking reformation of a written agreement must prove by clear and convincing evidence the document does not fully or truly state the agreement the parties intended to make.
The party seeking reformation of an agreement on the basis of mutual mistake must show that, when the agreement was executed, both parties intended to say something different from what was said in the document.
In a class action lawsuit, the district court may award payment to the class representatives. Factors in making the decision include the risk to class representatives in bringing suit, the time and effort spent by the class representatives, the duration of the litigation, the time and effort expended by the representatives in pursuing the litigation, and the degree to which the class has benefitted from the representatives' actions.
The districtr court must consider the factors listed under N.D.R.Civ.P. 23(p)(5) in awarding attorney fees in a class action lawsuit.
The district court is considered an expert in determining an award of attorney fees, and its decision will not be overturned on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion.
In awarding attorney fees in a class action lawsuit, the court may consider not only the available settlement fund but also the amount of actual claims on the fund.
Miller v. Diamond Resources, Inc. , 2005 ND 150, 703 N.W.2d 316
A proximate cause is a cause that, as a natural and continuous sequence unbroken by any controlling intervening cause, produces the injury, and without it the injury would not have occurred.
The intervening negligence of another cannot be a superseding cause that extinguishes a wrong-doer's liability if that negligence was a foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the wrong-doer.
Bice v. Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. , 2004 ND 113, 681 N.W.2d 74
An order certifying a class action under N.D.R.Civ.P. 23 is appealable, but a trial court's decision to certify a class action will not be overturned on appeal unless the trial court abused its discretion.
In determining whether a class action will provide a fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy, the trial court is not required to specifically address each of the thirteen factors listed in N.D.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1), but must weigh the competing factors, none of which is predominant.
Ritter, Laber & Assoc. v. Koch Oil , 2004 ND 117, 680 N.W.2d 634
A claim for conversion may arise under the same facts as a claim for a breach of contract.
The gist of a claim for conversion is not the rightful acquisition of the property, but the wrongful possession or deprivation of that property.
A party is not entitled to recover under unjust enrichment when there is an express contract between the parties relative to the same subject matter.
A motion to amend a complaint is addressed to the discretion of a trial court.
Gawryluk v. Poynter , 654 N.W.2d 400 (N.D. 2002)
The Duhig rationale applies to a grantor's overconveyance of mineral interests, and if the grantor does not own enough mineral interests to satisfy the conveyance, the conveyance is construed as a transfer of all the grantor's mineral interests.
Ritter, Laber & Assoc. v. Koch Oil , 2001 ND 56, 623 N.W.2d 424
A trial court has broad discretion to certify an action as a class action under N.D.R.Civ.P. 23.
As a class action progresses and the parties develop evidentiary facts, a trial court may redefine, subclassify, or decertify a previously certified class action.
ND Workers Comp. Bureau v. General Investment Corp. , 2000 ND 196, 619 N.W.2d 863
Section 38-09-01, N.D.C.C., generally reserves fifty percent of all oil, natural gas, or minerals whenever the State transfers land owned by the State.
The Workers Compensation Bureau may adjust or compromise claims upon defaults in the payment of premiums or premium installments.
A quitclaim deed executed by the State reflecting a compromise and a settlement releasing the Workers Compensation Bureau's doubtful claim to land, and does not reflect a sale resulting in a transfer of land.
Egeland v. Continental Resources, Inc. , 2000 ND 169, 616 N.W.2d 861
Consent from the landowner is not required when a lessee applies to the Industrial Commission to force pool property.
A Pugh clause severs an oil and gas lease when less than all of the leasehold is included in a pooled spacing unit, and production on the pooled portion does not normally constitute production on the part not pooled.
A continuous drilling operations clause continued to operate lease-wide after expiration of the primary term even though the Pugh clause limited the operation and effect of the habendum clause to the confines of each spacing unit.
Lonesome Dove Petroleum, Inc. v. Nelson , 2000 ND 104, 611 N.W.2d 154
Where the parties have agreed to the essential terms of a contract, the fact they contemplated a further writing memorializing the agreement does not prevent enforcement of the contract.
Voluntary acceptance of the consideration offered with a proposal may constitute acceptance.
Chapter 10-19.1, N.D.C.C., provides the standards and remedies for violation of minority shareholders' rights, and there is no common law fiduciary duty owed to minority shareholders.
Ritter, Laber & Assoc. v. Koch Oil , 2000 ND 15, 605 N.W.2d 153
An order certifying a class action is appealable.
A decision to certify a class action will be overturned on appeal only if the district court has abused its discretion. A court abuses its discretion if it misinterprets or misapplies the law.
In determining if a class action will provide a fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy, the court must consider and weigh the thirteen factors listed under N.D.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1). No one factor of the thirteen predominates over the others. The district court has broad discretion in reaching its decision, but it cannot rely on an incorrect analysis of a factor in reaching its ultimate decision on whether to grant class certification.
Apache Corporation v. MDU Resources Group , 1999 ND 247, 603 N.W.2d 891
A third party may not enforce a contract unless intended by the contracting parties to be benefited by the contract.
Unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine, applied in the absence of an express or implied contract, to prevent a person from being unjustly enriched at the expense of another.
Unjust enrichment requires the receipt of a benefit by the defendant from the plaintiff which would be inequitable to retain without paying for its value.
Miller v. Kloeckner , 1999 ND 190, 600 N.W.2d 881
A general conveyance of land, without any exception or reservation of the minerals, carries with it the minerals as well as the surface.
A warranty deed which describes the land conveyed and excepts and reserves one-half of the minerals to the grantors, conveys the surface and one-half of the minerals.
The Duhig rule, under which an undivided interest in minerals reserved by a grantor passes under a deed to the extent necessary to give the grantee the undivided interest purported to be conveyed by the deed, applies to a deed with a limited warranty or with no warranty, as well as to a deed with a general warranty.
Grynberg v. Dome Petroleum , 1999 ND 167, 599 N.W.2d 261
A judgment will not be reversed merely because the trial court's reasoning in arriving at the judgment was incorrect, if the result is the same under the correct law and reasoning.
The interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law.
Nygaard v. Continental Resources, Inc. , 1999 ND 172, 598 N.W.2d 851
Payment or offer of payment in any manner current in the ordinary course of business is sufficient unless the obligee demands payment in legal tender and gives any extension of time reasonably necessary to procure it.
An award of attorney fees for a frivolous claim for relief lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.
Spring Creek Ranch v. Svenberg , 1999 ND 113, 595 N.W.2d 323
Whether a party made a reasonable inquiry to ascertain the addresses of the mineral interest owners is a question of fact inappropriate for summary judgment.
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co v Burlington Resources Oil & Gas , 1999 ND 39, 590 N.W.2d 433
A principal's authorization for an agent to deal "for its own account" with the principal's property is an "authority expressed in general terms" under N.D.C.C. 3-02-05, thus rendering the obligations of a trustee in N.D.C.C. 59-01-09 to 59-01-19 applicable to the agent's self-dealing.
Sickler v. Kirkwood , 1997 ND 40, 560 N.W.2d 532
The trial court abused its discretion in certifying the partial summary judgment as final under Rule 54(b), N.D.R.Civ.P.
Continental Resources, Inc. v. Farrar Oil Company , 1997 ND 31, 559 N.W.2d 841
A horizontal well, authorized by a forced pooling order of the Industrial Commission, that penetrates the subsurface formation of another's oil and gas leasehold within the forced pool is not a subsurface trespass.
Greenfield v. Thill , 521 N.W.2d 87 (N.D. 1994)
Minex Resources, Inc. v. Morland , 518 N.W.2d 682 (N.D. 1994)
Maragos v. Norwest Bank Minnesota , 507 N.W.2d 562 (N.D. 1993)
State ex rel. Board of University & School Lands v. City of Sherwood , 489 N.W.2d 584 (N.D. 1992)
Hystad v. Mid-Con Exploration Co. - Exeter , 489 N.W.2d 571 (N.D. 1992)
Kiker v. Walters , 482 N.W.2d 626 (N.D. 1992)
Acoma Oil Corporation v. Wilson , 471 N.W.2d 476 (N.D. 1991)
Minex Resources v. Morland , 467 N.W.2d 691 (N.D. 1991)
Knife River Coal Mining Co. v. Neuberger , 466 N.W.2d 606 (N.D. 1991)
Slaaten v. Amerada Hess Corp. , 459 N.W.2d 765 (N.D. 1990)
Wacker Oil Inc. v. LoneTree Energy , 459 N.W.2d 381 (N.D. 1990)
Koch Hydrocarbon Co. v. State , 454 N.W.2d 508 (N.D. 1990)
Thompson v. Buford Township , 445 N.W.2d 303 (N.D. 1989)
Irgens v. Mobil Oil Corporation , 442 N.W.2d 223 (N.D. 1989)
Holman v. State , 438 N.W.2d 534 (N.D. 1989)
Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Public Service Commission , 431 N.W.2d 276 (N.D. 1988)
Williams Company v. Hamilton , 427 N.W.2d 822 (N.D. 1988)
Gofor Oil, Inc. v. State , 427 N.W.2d 104 (N.D. 1988)
Wood v. Krenz , 417 N.W.2d 186 (N.D. 1987)
State ex rel. Industrial Commission v. Harlan , 413 N.W.2d 355 (N.D. 1987)
Sorum v. Schwartz , 411 N.W.2d 652 (N.D. 1987)
Johnson v. Hamill , 392 N.W.2d 55 (N.D. 1986)
Hystad v. Industrial Commission , 389 N.W.2d 590 (N.D. 1986)
Lohse v. Atlantic Richfield Co. , 389 N.W.2d 352 (N.D. 1986)
Nantt v. Puckett Energy Co. , 382 N.W.2d 655 (N.D. 1986)
Monson v. Dwyer , 378 N.W.2d 865 (N.D. 1985)
Stracka v. Peterson , 377 N.W.2d 580 (N.D. 1985)
Prosper Energy Corporation v. Industrial Commission , 359 N.W.2d 860 (N.D. 1984)
Sibert v. Kubas , 357 N.W.2d 495 (N.D. 1984)
Miller v. Schwartz , 354 N.W.2d 685 (N.D. 1984)
Wehner v. Schroeder , 354 N.W.2d 674 (N.D. 1984)
Olson v. Schwartz , 345 N.W.2d 33 (N.D. 1984)
Sorum v. Schwartz , 344 N.W.2d 73 (N.D. 1984)
Johnson v. Mineral Estate, Inc. , 343 N.W.2d 778 (N.D. 1984)
Mueller v. Stangeland , 340 N.W.2d 450 (N.D. 1983)
Nygaard v. Robinson , 341 N.W.2d 349 (N.D. 1983)
Feiler v. Wanner , 340 N.W.2d 168 (N.D. 1983)
Slawson v. North Dakota Industrial Commission , 339 N.W.2d 772 (N.D. 1983)
Wehner v. Schroeder , 335 N.W.2d 563 (N.D. 1983)
Sickler v. Pope , 326 N.W.2d 86 (N.D. 1982)
Earth Builders, Inc. v. State Highway Department , 325 N.W.2d 258 (N.D. 1982)
Simpler v. Lowrey , 322 N.W.2d 848 (N.D. 1982)
Burlington Northern, Inc. v. Hall , 322 N.W.2d 233 (N.D. 1982)
Lee v. Gulf Oil Expoloration & Production Co. , 318 N.W.2d 766 (N.D. 1982)
Simpler v. Lowrey , 316 N.W.2d 330 (N.D. 1982)
Nodland v. Nokota Co. , 314 N.W.2d 89 (N.D. 1981)
Borth v. Gulf Oil Exploration & Production Co. , 313 N.W.2d 706 (N.D. 1981)
Schulz v. Hauck , 312 N.W.2d 360 (N.D. 1981)
Perschke v. Burlington Northern, Inc. , 311 N.W.2d 564 (N.D. 1981)
Norman Jessen & Associates, Inc. v. Amoco Production Co. , 305 N.W.2d 648 (N.D. 1981)
Texaro Oil Co. v. Mosser , 299 N.W.2d 191 (N.D. 1980)
West v. Alpar Resources, Inc. , 298 N.W.2d 484 (N.D. 1980)
Ell v. Ell , 295 N.W.2d 143 (N.D. 1980)
McDonald v. Antelope Land & Cattle Co. , 294 N.W.2d 391 (N.D. 1980)
Baukol Noonan, Inc. v. Bargmann , 283 N.W.2d 158 (N.D. 1979)
Hunt Oil Co. v. Kerbaugh , 283 N.W.2d 131 (N.D. 1979)
Slope County v. Consolidation Coal Co. , 277 N.W.2d 124 (N.D. 1979)
Noss v. Hagen , 274 N.W.2d 228 (N.D. 1979)
William Herbert Hunt Trust Estate v. Kiker , 269 N.W.2d 377 (N.D. 1978)
North American Coal Corporation v. Huber , 268 N.W.2d 593 (N.D. 1978)
Nodland v. Plainsmen Petroleum, Inc. , 265 N.W.2d 252 (N.D. 1978)
Taurus Corporation v. Roman Yourk Equity Pure Trust , 264 N.W.2d 688 (N.D. 1978)
Schwartzenberger v. William Herbert Hunt Trust Estate , 244 N.W.2d 711 (N.D. 1976)
Reiss v. Rummel , 232 N.W.2d 40 (N.D. 1975)
Signal Drilling Co., Inc. v. Liberty Petroleum Co. , 226 N.W.2d 148 (N.D. 1975)
Olson v. Dillerud , 226 N.W.2d 363 (N.D. 1975)
Christman v. Emineth , 212 N.W.2d 543 (N.D. 1973)
Bjerken v. Ames Sand and Gravel Co. Inc. , 206 N.W.2d 884 (N.D. 1973)
Schank v. North American Royalties, Inc. , 201 N.W.2d 419 (N.D. 1972)
Runge v. Moore , 196 N.W.2d 87 (N.D. 1972)
Cardinal Petroleum v. Northern Pacific Railway , 193 N.W.2d 131 (N.D. 1971)
Kadrmas v. Sauvageau , 188 N.W.2d 753 (N.D. 1971)
Stetson v. Investors Oil , 176 N.W.2d 643 (N.D. 1970)
Feland v. Placid Oil Company , 171 N.W.2d 829 (N.D. 1969)
Knox v. Krueger , 145 N.W.2d 904 (N.D. 1966)
Smith v. Amerada Petroleum Co. , 136 N.W.2d 483 (N.D. 1965)

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 07/23/2008