Legal Case

In Re Morningstar Oil & Gas, LLC, TXO Partners GP, LLC and TXO Partners, L.P. v. the State of Texas

Court

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided

June 17, 2025

Jurisdiction

SA

Importance

44%

Significant

Practice Areas

Oil and Gas Law
Litigation

Case Summary

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-25-00239-CV ___________________________ IN RE MORNINGSTAR OIL & GAS, LLC, TXO PARTNERS GP, LLC AND TXO PARTNERS, L.P., Relators Original Proceeding 352nd District Court of Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 352-353631-24 Before Bassel, Kerr, and Birdwell, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION The court has considered relators’ petition for writ of mandamus, real party in interest’s response, and relators’ reply and is of the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relators’ petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Per Curiam Delivered: June 17, 2025 2

NEW FEATURE

Agentic Research

Unlock the power of AI-driven legal research. Our advanced agentic system autonomously analyzes cases, identifies patterns, and delivers comprehensive insights in minutes, not hours.

AI-Powered Analysis
Precise Legal Research
10x Faster Results

Join 2,500+ legal professionals

Case Details

Case Details

Legal case information

Status

Decided

Date Decided

June 17, 2025

Jurisdiction

SA

Court Type

federal

Legal Significance

Case importance metrics

Importance Score
Significant
Score44%
Citations
0
Legal Topics
Writ of Mandamus
Appellate Jurisdiction

Metadata

Additional information

AddedJun 23, 2025
UpdatedJun 23, 2025

Quick Actions

Case management tools

AI-enhanced legal analysis

Case Summary

AI Generated

AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis

Legal Topics

Areas of law covered in this case

Writ of Mandamus
Appellate Jurisdiction

Case Information

Detailed case metadata and classifications

Court Proceedings

Date FiledJune 17, 2025
Date DecidedJune 17, 2025

Document Details

Times Cited
0
Importance Score
0.4

Legal Classification

JurisdictionSA
Court Type
federal

Similar Cases

2

Cases with similar legal principles and precedents

Doll v. Tressler

341 Or. App. 363

80% match
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Jun 2025

No. 549 June 18, 2025 363 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of the Estate of Wilbert H. Tressler, deceased. Barbi M. DOLL, Appellant, v. Donald Lee TRESSLER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Wilbert H. Tressler, Respondent. Washington County Circuit Court 21PB05510; A180067 Janelle F. Wipper, Judge. Submitted May 20, 2025. Jennifer J. Martin, Kevin O’Connell, and Law Offices of O’Connell Hval & Martin filed the briefs for appellant. Heather Cavanaugh, Julie R. Vacura, and Larkins Vacura Kayser, LLP, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Hellman, Judge, and O’Connor, Judge. ORTEGA, P. J. Affirmed. 364 Doll v. Tressler ORTEGA, P. J. Petitioner Barbi Doll seeks reversal of an opinion and order concluding that decedent Wilbert Tressler lacked testamentary capacity when he executed a will in 2020, which made her the primary beneficiary of his estate and which also concluded that the will was the result of undue influence by petitioner. She seeks reversal of that opinion and order, which invalidated the 2020 will, and the findings and conclusions supporting it. We affirm. Petitioner has not asked this court to try the cause anew on the record under ORAP 5.40(8), and this is not an “exceptional case” warranting such review. ORAP 5.40(8)(c). Accordingly, we are bound by the trial court’s findings of historical fact that are supported by any evidence in the record and review the court’s dispositional conclusions for errors of law. See Williamson v. Zielinski, 326 Or App 648, 649, 532 P3d 1257 (2023). The trial court’s findings of historical fact are sup- ported by evidence in the record and are bolstered by its credibility findings. Those findings provide ample legal sup- port for its dispositional conclusions. We therefore conclude that petitioner has failed to show any basis for reversal of the opinion and order. Affirmed.

Very Similar Similarity

VH-Minneapolis South Inc v. TGI Friday's Inc., Akaashaman LLC

80% match
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Aug 2025

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A24-1820 VH-Minneapolis South Inc, Respondent, vs. TGI Friday’s Inc., Defendant, Akaashaman LLC, Appellant. Filed August 11, 2025 Affirmed Reyes, Judge Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CV-20-12600 Patrick J. Rooney, Anna M. Swiecichowski, Fafinski Mark & Johnson, PA, Eden Prairie, Minnesota (for respondent) Jeffrey M. Markowitz, Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak & Pikala, PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Adam L. Massaro (pro hac vice), Reed Smith, Denver, Colorado (for appellant) Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Schmidt, Judge. NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION REYES, Judge Appellant-easement holder challenges the district court’s award of monetary damages to respondent-property owner for nonpayment of easement expenses, arguing that respondent did not properly furnish expense invoices and failed to provide notice of default as required by the easement agreement. We affirm. FACTS This case arises from the nonpayment of expenses associated with a parking-lot easement. Appellant Akaashaman LLC owns a TGI Friday’s restaurant in Bloomington, and respondent VH-Minneapolis South (VH) owns a neighboring DoubleTree by Hilton hotel. VH’s property includes the parking lot immediately surrounding Akaashaman’s restaurant (the common area). Without an easement, Akaashaman would lack access to the parking lot. The Easement The prior owners of the properties entered into an easement agreement in 1989. The agreement grants the restaurant owner an easement that gives its guests and employees access to the entirety of the parking lot owned by the hotel owner. The easement is perpetual and nonexclusive, runs with the land, and is binding upon successors in interest. Under the agreement, the hotel owner is responsible for maintaining the common area, which includes keeping it safe, landscaped, insured, properly surfaced, adequately lit, and clean. In exchange, the restaurant owner must reimburse the hotel owner a pro rata share of approximately 16% of the costs “reasonably and directly expended” by the hotel 2 owner. To be reimbursed, the hotel owner “shall furnish . . . a statement” detailing the common-area expenses within 45 days of the end of “each one-half calendar period.” The hotel owner must keep records of the common-area expenses for at least 12 months following the delivery of each invoice. The restaurant owner, “subject to the right of reasonable verification,” is required to “pay the invoice within twenty . . . days of receipt.” Under paragraph seven of the agreement, a party is in default under the agreement if it fails to comply with “any of its obligations under [the] [a]greement,” provided that the noncompliance “continues for ten days after such party’s receipt of notice of default pursuant to paragraph 14.” Paragraph 14 states that “[n]otice may be given by . . . depositing written notice in the United States mail, certified mail” at the listed addresses “or such other address as may be designated from time to time by any party for itself.” (Emphasis added.) Initial Payment of Costs When Akaashaman, owned by Anil Yadav, purchased the restaurant property in December 2015, Bloomington Hotel Investors LLC (BHI) owned the hotel property. BHI’s director of finance, Russell Huhner, would send the biannual invoices to individuals associated with Yadav, including Tejal Chokshi, Kevin Kevorkian, and Terry Sayles. Chokshi is the controller and chief financial officer for Yadav Enterprises, owned by Anil Yadav. Kevorkian is counsel for Yadav. Sayles is an employee of Yadav Enterprises and the director of operations for a subsidiary of the company. Akaashaman initially made all payments required under the agreement. 3 Nonpayment Akaashaman failed to pay the common-area expenses for the first half of 2019 and failed to make any additional payments. In August 2019, Huhner sent an invoice for the first half of the year to Chokshi, Kevorkian, and Sayles. Huhner met with Sayles and Stacy Franklin, an employee of Yadav Enterprises, t

Very Similar Similarity