# Tucker v. Special Energy Corp.

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · June 17, 2008 · 187 P.3d 730

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9786704

## Case

- **Full name:** Don W. TUCKER and Joseph H. Taft, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. SPECIAL ENERGY CORP.; DPC Corp.; The Estate of Michael L. Ross, Deceased; Special Exploration Co., Inc.; SCM Development, L.L.C.; G & C Petroleum, Inc.; New Dominion, L.L.C.; Azar Minerals, Ltd.; DBS Investments, Ltd.; GBC Minerals, Ltd.; William L. Knobles; Resource Exploration & Development, Inc.; Krishna Family, L.L.C.; W.K. Chernicky, L.L.C.; The McDaniel Company, Inc.; Milagro Resources, Inc.; David J. Chernicky; Joseph D. Corpening; Alan W. Stracke; Chernico Exploration, Inc.; Sandra M.L. Watt; Kimberly A. Harper; Janett L. Gunzenheiser; Thomas C. Chernicky; Donald P. Chernicky; Gill Family Investments, Inc.; And David J. Chernicky Trust, Defendants/Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** June 17, 2008
- **Citations:** 187 P.3d 730; 169 Oil & Gas Rep. 293; 2008 OK 57; 2008 Okla. LEXIS 61; 2008 WL 2439995
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Opala
- **Judges:** Winchester, Edmondson, Hargrave, Opala, Kauger, Watt, Taylor, Colbert, Reif
- **Cited by:** 14 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/9786704

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9786704. Public record. Not legal advice.