Any updates on supreme Court hearings for landowners vs roylties

I haven,t heard anything on this subject for a while.

Views: 1208

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Magnetron12 on August 23, 2016 at 8:11am

http://www.ohiochannel.org/video/case-no-2014-1966-tribett-v-shepherd

They should be making a decision any decade now....

Permalink Reply by Albert Russell on August 23, 2016 at 9:17am

Magnetron12,

Thank you for the link, very informative.

Permalink Reply by Bluflame on August 23, 2016 at 10:42pm
M12,
Unlike previous oral arguments, both the Supremes and the presenting lawyers seemed to be engaged and well-informed. The Justices asked questions that I thought were indicative of their posture in these matters. Whatever they decide, the financial stakes to landowners/mineral rights holders are high. Let's hope a decision is rendered fairly quickly. All the questions have theoretically been vetted.
BluFlame
Permalink Reply by Magnetron12 on August 24, 2016 at 12:08am

Most agreed. I could be wrong but it does appear that they may be leaning towards odma 1989 as not being self enacting which gives odma 2006 the upper hand??? M12

Permalink Reply by Scott72 on August 26, 2016 at 1:52am

Although I hope you are correct, that's not how I viewed the interactions.  O'Connor seems to be for the mineral owners, but she appears to be the minority.  And to Warnock's point, it they were in favor of the 1989 statute not being self executing, they would never have heard this case.

Permalink Reply by Magnetron12 on August 26, 2016 at 4:24am

If ODMA 1989 was such a great Act then ODMA 2006 would not have been necessary. Therefore it only makes sense to follow DMA 2006 and any ruling otherwise would be a gigantic FARCE...

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on August 26, 2016 at 7:27am

You have to apply the law that was in place at the time. For land transactions that happened between 1989 and 2006, the 1989 version should apply.

0ym9x5ag7ury2Permalink Reply by 0ym9x5ag7ury2 on August 24, 2016 at 1:35pm

The title of this post should have been:  "Any Updates On The Ohio Supreme Court Arguments on The Dormant Minerals Act".

Now if you want to know more about the Ohio Supreme Court Hearing Arguments on  Chesapeake's "Post Production Costs" which has a direct effect on Landowner Royalties (being nothing) try watching this Ohio Channel Video: 

Some quotable quotes from Chesapeake's lawyer "Just Read The Contract" and "We sell at the Well Head" (So where do you get Post Production Costs from, the product was sold, right?)

http://www.ohiochannel.org/search?7&pageSize=12&start=1&...

Permalink Reply by Magnetron12 on August 24, 2016 at 2:58pm

Ron,

Thanks for the info but a lot of us on here are awaiting Bonus Checks and have no interest at this time in whether or not we will receive any royalties stolen or not... LOL. mag12

0ym9x5ag7ury2Permalink Reply by 0ym9x5ag7ury2 on August 27, 2016 at 3:07am

Magnetron,

      Your tune will change soon enough, but don't wait for a Bonus Check too long. You might want to take action or your producer will think you are just another US Citizen ripe for picking.

Did you know your name is what powers a microwave or makes radar work? It's a pretty nifty device.  

    

Permalink Reply by Magnetron12 on August 27, 2016 at 3:17am

Ron,

Already got a partial bonus check and invested it in some property that now pays me a net of 800.00 monthly from here to eternity. 

Good Luck with your ongoing suit. And yes i work on stuff that contain magnetrons hence the alias.

M12

0ym9x5ag7ury2Permalink Reply by 0ym9x5ag7ury2 on August 27, 2016 at 3:03am

See Hope Christian Fellowship vs Chesapeake Energy filed in Youngstown November 2015. Read it and you'll understand how theft works, and become familiar with the term RICO, and Discovery.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service