holding that plaintiffs’ action to quiet title was not a collateral attack on an OCC pooling order because plaintiffs were “not attempting to obtain an order declaring the [pooling order] void”
How later courts described this case
- holding that plaintiffs’ action to quiet title was not a collateral attack on an OCC pooling order because plaintiffs were “not attempting to obtain an order declaring the [pooling order] void”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OPALA, J.,
concurring.
I concur solely in the court's reversal of the trial court's order that dismissed the action and in the expressed legal ground *735 ascribed in today's opinion to the court's conclusion. As is clearly stated in today's pronouncement, the court expresses no view whatsoever upon any element of the pressed claim's merits.