Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the judgment of the district court deciding that a form of the accommodation doctrine governed to resolve the parties' dispute over priority of rights between mineral developers, holding that the BLM was not an indispensable party and that law of the case principles applied.The parties in this case were Berenergy Corporation, which owned rights to both federal and private oil and gas, and Peabody Powder River Mining, LLC, which held federal coal leases. These minerals overlapped. In Berenergy I, the Supreme Court determined that the BLM was a necessary party to the proceedings dealing with competing federal leases and remanded the case. The private oil and gas lease (the Thornburg lease) was not appealed or decided in Berenergy I. On remand, the district court concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction as to the lands underlying the Thornburg lease without the presence of the BLM. The court then applied the law of the case in deciding that a form of the accommodation doctrine governed to resolve the parties' dispute on the overlapping minerals. The Supreme Court held (1) the BLM was not an indispensable party to the lease dispute; and (2) law of the case principles applied. View "Berenergy Corp. v. BTU Western Resources, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order on summary judgment motions and order after bench trial in this dispute arising from an ill-conceived business conveyance plan during a downturn in the oil market, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in any respect.Three Garland brothers, who had separate entities providing specialized services to the oil industry, formed a company with their companies as members and the Garlands individually as members. Alex Mantle was president of the company. Mantle and the Garlands later entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) providing that Mantle and his wife would buy the company, but Mantle backed out of the deal. The Garlands liquidated the company, and this litigation followed. The district court disposed of some claims on summary judgment and resolved the remainder after a bench trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Garlands and their entities did not abandon their counterclaims; (2) the MOU was an enforceable contract; (3) the district court correctly dismissed the Mantles’ fraud claim; (4) the district court correctly concluded that some conveyances by the Garlands fit the definitions of a fraudulent conveyance; (5) the elements for LLC veil-piercing were absent; and (6) the Garlands did not owe Mantle a duty of good faith. View "Garland v. Mantle" on Justia Law

At issue was whether this case presented a justiciable issue when the Supreme Court could not render a decision binding on a federal agency and could only offer an advisory opinion that may or may not ultimately bind the parties.Berenergy Corporation, which produced oil from several sites under oil and gas leases granted by the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), sought a declaratory judgment that the terms of its BLM oil leases provided it with rights superior to any obtained by Peabody Energy Corporation through its coal leases. The district court granted in part and denied in part both parties’ motions for summary judgment. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings before the district court, holding (1) Congress intended that the issues raised by Berenergy be decided by the Secretary of the Interior or its BLM designees; (2) there was no express consent by the federal government for the Secretary or the BLM to be made a party to suits such as this for the purpose of informing a congressionally approved decision by the district court; but (3) the court nonetheless remands this case for an evaluation of whether a federal agency may participate in this suit. View "Berenergy Corp. v. BTU Western Resources, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the Board of Equalization’s decision affirming the ruling of the Wyoming Department of Revenue against PacifiCorp, Inc., which sought a ruling that its purchases of certain chemicals used in the process of generating electricity in coal-fired electrical generation facilities in Wyoming qualified for either the manufacturers’ sales tax exemption or the wholesalers’ sales tax exemption. The court held (1) The Board erred when it concluded that PacifiCorp is not a manufacturer under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 39-15-105(a)(iii)A); (2) the Board did not err when it held that certain chemicals necessary to treat water and sulfur dioxide emissions during the coal combustion processes that generate electricity are not “used directly” to generate electricity and are therefore not exempt from sales tax under section 39-15-105(a)(iii)(A); and (3) the Board did not err when it held that PacifiCorp’s purchases of certain chemicals and catalysts do not constitute wholesale purchases exempt from taxation under section 39-15-105(a)(iii)(F). View "PacifiCorp, Inc. v. Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

The parties in this case disputed title to certain mineral interests underlying certain property. The dispute arose out of a 1911 Laramie County tax assessment against Union Pacific’s mineral interests in the property and the county’s subsequent tax sale and issuance of a tax deed for the property. Family Tree Corporation, which claimed title to portions of the minerals, filed a complaint for quiet title and declaratory judgment against Three Sisters LLC, which also claimed an ownership in the minerals, and Anardarko Land Corporation. The district court quieted title to Family Tree based upon the 1912 tax sale. Anadarko appealed, arguing that the 1911 tax assessment against the minerals was unconstitutional, and therefore, the resulting tax sale and deed were void. The Supreme Court affirmed after drawing the line between a tax assessment defect that will render a tax deed void and one that will render the tax deed viable, holding (1) the error in Laramie County’s tax assessment against the minerals at issue rendered the resulting tax deed voidable, not void; and (2) accordingly, Anadarko’s challenge to the validity of the tax deed was barred by the statute of limitations. View "Anadarko Land Corp. v. Family Tree Corp." on Justia Law

Pennaco Energy Inc. acquired mineral leases beneath a surface estate owned by Brett Sorenson, Trustee of the Brett L. Sorenson Trust. A surface damage and use agreement between the parties granted Pennaco access to and use of the land for exploration and production of minerals, and, in return, required Pennaco to pay for the damage to and use of the surface estate, and to reclaim the land once operations ended. When Pennaco refused to perform its obligations under the contract, Soreson brought this lawsuit. The jury rendered a verdict finding that Sorenson suffered more than $1 million in damages. The district court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict and also awarded Sorenson costs and attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) ruling that Pennaco remained liable under the surface damage and use agreement after assignment, and (2) using a 2.5 multiplier to enhance the lodestar amount in awarding attorney fees. View "Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. Sorenson" on Justia Law

Pennaco Energy, Inc. obtained oil and gas leases and made contracts with the surface landowners, who were predecessors of Appellees. The contracts granted Pennaco use of the landowners’ land during exploration and production under the mineral leases. After several years, Pennaco assigned its interest in its coal bed methane operation to CEP-M purchase, LLC, which re-assigned those interests to High Plains Gas, Inc. After the assignment, neither Pennaco nor the assignees made any required payments under the assignments, nor did they reclaim any of the land, as required under the agreements. Appellees sued Pennaco for breach of the agreements. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees. Pennaco appealed, arguing that the district court erred in concluding that Pennaco remained liable under the agreements even after the assignment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the agreements contained indications that Pennaco’s contractual obligations continued even after assignment and because there was no express clause that terminated Pennaco’s obligations upon assigning the agreements to a third party, Pennaco remained liable to Appellees to perform the covenants in the event its assignee defaulted. View "Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. KD Co., LLC" on Justia Law

The parties in this case owned interests in certain oil and gas leases in Sublette County, Wyoming. In the underlying litigation, the district court granted a monetary judgment against Defendants for amounts due to Plaintiffs. Defendants paid the monetary judgment. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to enforce judgment, claiming that Defendants were not properly accounting to them as required by the prior declaratory judgment and a net profits contract (NPC). After the district court issued its judgment, Defendants appealed the court’s decisions on the merits and its order requiring Defendants to pay attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed as revised, holding that the district court (1) properly assumed jurisdiction over the issues presented; (2) correctly interpreted its prior judgment and Defendants’ accounting responsibilities under the NPC; and (3) properly granted Plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees with one minor exception. View "Ultra Resources, Inc. v. Hartman" on Justia Law

PRM Partners was a leaseholder of lands which covered an oil well. PRM Partners designated Petroleum Resource Managements, Corp. (PRM) as the operator of the well. PRM contracted with Hot Oil Services, Inc. to perform the day-to-day operations of the well. In 2009, Hot Oil requested that Basic Energy Services, LP perform workover operations on the well. While Basic Energy was performing the workover operations, a fire erupted, which damaged various pieces of equipment, including Basic Energy’s workover rig. Basic Energy sued PRM Partners and PRM to recover the damage to its equipment. The district court granted summary judgment for PRM Partners and PRM, concluding that Hot Oil was an independent contractor and that neither PRM nor PRM Partners could be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor. The Supreme Court (1) reversed and remanded on the issue of whether PRM breached the contract and reversed and remanded on the claim that PRM acted negligently in hiring Hot Oil, holding that the district court erred in entering summary judgment on these issues, as PRM failed to carry the initial burden of a summary judgment movant; and (2) ordered that PRM Partners be dismissed from the appeal. View "Basic Energy Servs., LP v. Petroleum Res. Mgmt., Corp." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a joint operating agreement (JOA) for Wyoming oil and gas interests entered into in 2000 by the predecessors in interest to Windsor Energy Group, LLC and Windsor Beaver Creek, LLC (together, Windsor) and Noble Energy, Inc. (Noble). In 2004, Noble’s predecessor assigned its interest to another party. In 2010, Windsor filed suit against Noble’s predecessor, claiming it was obligated for costs under the JOA. The district court ruled (1) an assignor of an interest who was not formally released was still obligated under the JOA, but (2) Windsor’s claim against Noble for breach of the JOA was barred by laches. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment without addressing the contract issue, holding that the district court (1) did not err in ruling that the equitable doctrine of laches was an available defense to Windsor’s claim for breach of the JOA even though the statute of limitations had not expired; and (2) did not abuse its discretion by finding the elements of laches were satisfied in this case. View "Windsor Energy Group, LLC v. Noble Energy, Inc." on Justia Law