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.