Cravens v. Corporation Commission
| Decision Date | 29 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 52488,52488 |
| Citation | 1980 OK 73,613 P.2d 442 |
| Parties | Don CRAVENS, Receiver for Buffalo Valley Gas Authority, a public trust, and Commercial and Industrial Bank of Memphis, Appellants, v. CORPORATION COMMISSION of the State of Oklahoma; Jay McCown, L.R.C. Corp., and Cleary Petroleum Corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Appeal from the Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma.
Receiver for Buffalo Gas Authority appeals from a refusal by the Corporation Commission to vacate a drilling and spacing order on grounds receiver had no actual notice of the hearing wherein order was issued.
REVERSED.
Don Ed Payne, Payne & Welch, Hugo, Val R. Miller, Crowe, Dunlevy, Thweatt, Swinford, Johnson & Burdick, Oklahoma City, for appellants.
Richard K. Goodwin, Oklahoma City, for appellees, Jay McCown and L.R.C. Corp.
Don Cravens, duly appointed receiver of the Buffalo Valley Gas Authority (Authority) made application to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (Commission) to vacate an order establishing a 160 acre drilling and spacing unit for the Big Fork, Authority, a public trust established for the purpose of furnishing natural gas to certain towns had been in receivership for a year when Commission created the unit. At that time Authority, through the receiver, was operating the Reneau Well # 1, a producing gas well located on an 80 acre lease included in the unit.
Jay McCown et al. (applicants) obtained the drilling and spacing order for the Big Fork (Reneau Chert) alleged common source of supply underlying a quarter section in Latimer County, Oklahoma. The order designated Authority's well as the unit well. Despite actual knowledge of Authority's lease, its operation of the producing well and the existence of the receivership in Pushmataha County, applicants did not notify receiver of the proceeding before the Commission wherein they sought to include Authority's 80 acre lease in a single 160 acre unit. Notice was by publication only. Applicants did not seek to space any other acreage in the area and the order was entered by default.
Receiver was unaware of the application or proceeding before Commission until after the order was issued. It was on this principle Receiver 1 sought to vacate the order, claiming had he received notice he would have appeared and resisted the application by presenting evidence there was no basis for creating the 160 acre unit, rather than an 80 acre unit.
After hearing the trial authority recommended Receiver's application be granted and the original order vacated. Applicants filed exceptions. Commission heard the exceptions and considered the trial examiner's report but declined to accept it or to vacate the order enlarging the unit. Receiver appeals.
Oklahoma statutes and the rules of the Corporation Commission provide the minimal type of notice required for each type hearing, depending on the relief sought.
52 O.S.1979 Supp. § 87.1 sets forth the publication notice required when a drilling and spacing order is sought. This same requirement is contained in Commission rule 12(b) which provides:
It is stipulated the notice requirements of the statutes and this rule were met. Notice was published in Oklahoma County and Latimer County where the well was located. However, there was no publication in Pushmataha County where the receivership was pending. Under these facts and circumstances we do not believe the publication notice provided by the statute and rules was adequate to meet constitutional scrutiny.
It is generally held that administrative agencies...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. Nelson
...see note 29, supra; Matter of Guardianship of S.A.W., see note 29, supra; Matter of Chad S., see note 29, supra.38 Cravens v. Corporation Comm'n, 1980 OK 73, 613 P.2d 442, 444.39 Title 43 O.S. Supp. 199 § 107.2, see note 2, supra.40 Administrative Order CV-95-1, see note 1, supra.41 Title 4......
-
Harry R. Carlile Trust v. Cotton Petroleum Corp.
...who properly have preserved the issue on appeal be bypassed, and left unaffected and unprotected in the appellate pipeline. 5 1 Okl., 613 P.2d 442 [1980].2 The terms of 52 O.S.Supp.1982 § 87.1(a) provide in pertinent part:"* * * When such a petition is filed with the Commission, the Commiss......
-
Oklahoma Boll Weevil Eradication Organization, In re
...258-259 (1982); Armstrong, supra note 12, 380 U.S. at 552, 85 S.Ct. at 1191.15 Bomford, supra note 11, at 715; Cravens v. Corporation Commission, 1980 OK 73, 613 P.2d 442, 444; Harry R. Carlile Trust v. Cotton Petroleum Corp., 1986 OK 16, 732 P.2d 438, 443 n. 25; Cate, supra note 11, at 135......
-
Estate of Pope, Matter of
...is also articulated in our own jurisprudence (Bomford v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., Okl., 440 P.2d 713, 715 [1968]; Cravens v. Corporation Commission, Okl., 613 P.2d 442 [1980]; Harry R. Carlile Trust v. Cotton Petroleum Corp., Okl., 732 P.2d 438, 443, n. 25 [1987]; Cate v. Archon Oil Co., Inc.,......
-
CHAPTER 12 STATUTORY UNITIZATION: SIGNIFICANT LEGAL ISSUES
...to one party, Amoco, because of insufficient notice. Walker v. Cleary Petroleum Corp., 421 So. 2d 85 (Ala. 1982); Cravens v. Corp. Comm'n, 613 P.2d 442 (Okla. 1980) cert. denied, 450 U.S. 964 (1980); Moore Oil Inc. v. Snakard, 150 F. Supp. 250 (W. D. Okla. 1957) (court held that failure to ......
-
CHAPTER 6 OKLAHOMA FORCED POOLING
...250 (W.D. Okla. (1957); Union Texas Petroleum v. Corporation Commission, 651 P.2d 652 (Okla. 1981); Cravens v. Corporation Commission, 613 P.2d 442 (Okla. 1980), cert. denied sub nom. McCown v. Cravens, 450 U.S. 964 (1981); Bomford v. Socony Mobil Oil Company, 440 P.2d 713 (Okla. 1968). [4]......
-
CHAPTER 9 PRESENTING A CASE BEFORE AN OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION
...[44] Mallone v. Centeral Hanover Bank and Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950); Cravens v. Corporation Commission, 613 P.2d 442 (Okla. 1980). [45] See Balkovatz, "Practice and Procedure Before Oil and Gas Commissions — Some Nuts and Bolts", 25 Rocky Mt. Min. L. Inst. 1......