Member Login
Search

Judicial News

 

Texas Supreme Court rules in favor of landowner in Boerschig v. Rio Grande Electric Cooperative - May 2026

In a significant win for Texas landowners, the Texas Supreme Court has issued its ruling in Boerschig v. Rio Grande Electric Cooperative. The case centered on Mr. Boerschig, who purchased a ranch that came with a pre-existing blanket easement granting access to Rio Grande Electric Cooperative (RGEC).

The court acknowledged that an easement by estoppel existed on the property—but held that its scope was limited. Critically, it did not extend to infrastructure upgrades that RGEC subsequently completed on the land. As a result, the cooperative is now responsible for compensating Mr. Boerschig for those improvements.

TLMA filed an amicus brief supporting Boerschig in this case, drafted by Nicholas Laurent, Partner at Barron, Alder, Clough & Oddo. For additional analysis, John McFarland has published a helpful write-up on his Oil and Gas Lawyer Blog.

Opinion - Concurring Opinion - Dissent

TLMA Weighs In on Injunctive Relief Case with Significant Implications for Landowners - May 2026

TLMA has submitted an amicus brief in Family Dollar Stores of Texas, LLC v. JLMH Investments, LLC — an unusual case for the association, but one with meaningful consequences for land and mineral owners across Texas. Our brief addresses a question left unanswered in the Respondent's briefing: why Texas courts hold that the statute of limitations does not apply to abating a nuisance.

The stakes for landowners are real. A leak or other nuisance may start small and remain below the threshold worth litigating for several years — only to grow significantly over time. If the Texas Supreme Court reverses the Court of Appeals decision, landowners would face a difficult choice: file suit over every minor nuisance to preserve their rights, or risk losing their ability to seek relief if the problem escalates down the road.

TLMA's brief argues that requiring premature litigation would place an undue burden on landowners and undermine the long-standing principle that courts retain equitable authority to abate ongoing nuisances regardless of when the harm began.

We are grateful to Ryan Gaddis, Partner at BurnsCharest, for his expertise to draft this brief on behalf of our members.

TLMA Files Additional Brief Supporting Hlavinka - May 2026

In 2022, the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion in the Hlavinka v. HSC Pipeline case in favor of the landowners. The Court remanded the case back to the trial court, who found in favor of the landowner. The case has made it back to the First Court of Appeals. TLMA filed an additional brief supporting the Hlavinka's. In the brief, TLMA addresses three primary issues: (1) whether there is legally sufficient evidence that the property’s highest and best use was for pipeline sales; (2) whether comparable pipeline sales were properly admitted, and (3) whether the trial court properly excluded post-date of taking evidence.

You can read our full brief at this link. First COA Brief 2026.pdf

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Post-Production Cost Case - March 2026

In early March, the Supreme Court of Texas heard oral arguments in the latest post-production cost case - Fasken Oil v. Puig. At the center of the dispute is the interpretation of the phrase “free of cost forever.” Lower courts ruled in favor of the Puigs, and TLMA submitted an amicus brief in support of their position. 

You can watch the oral arguments on the Supreme Court of Texas’ Youtube page.

Texas Supreme Court Denies Petition for Review in Surface Owner Case – January 2026

The Texas Supreme Court has denied the Petition for Review in CT Land and Cattle Co., LLC v. Unitex WI, LLC and Unitex Oil & Gas LLC, a case addressing whether a line-burial provision in a deed runs with the surface estate and may be enforced by subsequent surface owners.

CT Land and Cattle Co. argued that the court of appeals “erroneously held that a covenant that runs with the surface may only be enforced by a subsequent mineral lessor.” While the trial court ruled partially in favor of CT Land and Cattle Co., the court of appeals reversed, concluding that the “1997 Senn Deed detached the line-burial provision.”

The questions presented to the Supreme Court by CT Land and Cattle Co. included:

  1. Did the court of appeals erroneously upend long-standing Texas law by finding a reservation by implication and holding that a surface covenant that runs with the land may not be enforced by the subsequent surface estate owner because is not the successor to the mineral lessor?
  2. [UNBRIEFED] Did the court of appeals err by remanding for the reconsideration of attorney’s fees without answering the legal question presented of whether CT Land’s declaratory judgment claim was “part and parcel” or duplicative of its breach of contract claim?   

TLMA did not file a brief in this case. You can find all case documents at this link.