# Amarillo Oil Co. v. Energy-Agri Products, Inc.

> Texas Supreme Court · June 27, 1990 · 33 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 623

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9773162

## Case

- **Full name:** AMARILLO OIL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. ENERGY-AGRI PRODUCTS, INC., Respondent
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 27, 1990
- **Citations:** 33 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 623; 794 S.W.2d 20; 109 Oil & Gas Rep. 524; 1990 Tex. LEXIS 102; 1990 WL 93252
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Mauzy
- **Judges:** Gonzalez, Ray, Hightower, Mauzy
- **Cited by:** 67 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9773162

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding lease of only oil and casinghead gas did not convey ownership of other gas or liquids that became mixed with product stream during production
- concluding that a suit to enjoin trespass by "sand fracking" could proceed in a judicial forum
- rejecting argument that party’s judicial action for trespass was impermissible collateral attack on Railroad Commission’s findings

## Opinion text

Dissenting opinions by
Justices GONZALEZ and MAUZY.
Justice HIGHTOWER not sitting.
MAUZY, Justice, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I cannot agree with the Court’s decision to remand this cause to the trial court in the interest of justice. Amarillo Oil freely chose the legal theory, whether correct or incorrect, on which it proceeded at trial. It requested the questions submitted to the jury, it introduced evidence regarding those questions, and it received answers from the jury regarding those questions. Unfortunately for Amarillo Oil, the jury’s answers were not favorable. Plainly, on the record before it, the trial court rendered a correct judgment. Such “an errorless judgment ... cannot be reversed in the interest of justice.” Uselton v. State, 499 S.W.2d 92, 99 (Tex.1973). I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9773162. Public record. Not legal advice.