This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In Martin v. JKD Investmens, LLC , the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, rejected a plaintiff’s fraud claim because the plaintiff had failed to read the contract that he signed which transferred the mineral rights on his property to JKD Investments, LLC ("JKD"). Click here to read more. In Martin , the plaintiff inherited five and a half acres from his mother.
By Kindall James The issue of whether an individual employee is personally liable for oilfield environmental damages was recently addressed in Kling Realty Co., Inc. v. Texaco, Inc , 2007 WL 81665 (W.D. La. 2007). The plaintiff mineral lessors claimed that their property had been damaged by oilfield operations, and sued not only the operator, but also a production supervisor.
In Duplantier v. BP Amoco, et al. , the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal held that under Act 312 of 2006 (La. R.S. 30:29), there should be a single trial of both the regulatory remediation covered by the statute and the plaintiffs’ separate damages claims (if any). The Louisiana Supreme Court has now denied a writ application with respect to that opinion.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 12,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content