Maxine Brown; Charles R. Spillman; James A. Tully,plaintiffs-appellants, v. Mobil Oil Corporation, a Corporation, Defendant-appellee, 947 F.2d 953 (10th Cir. 1991)
Annotate this CaseBefore McKAY, Chief Judge, and SEYMOUR and EBEL, Circuit Judges
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
McKAY, Chief Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Petitioners appeal from the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of respondents. The standard of review of a district court's decision on a motion for summary judgment is de novo. Thournir v. Meyer, 909 F.2d 408 (10th Cir. 1990). The primary issue at trial was whether respondent bore an obligation to pay petitioners working and royalty interest revenues for oil and gas production proportionate to petitioner's interest in the Nevius No. 1A-25 well.
After a thorough review of the record and pleadings, this court AFFIRMS the action taken by the district court for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its order of November 5, 1990.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir.R. 36.3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
