# Supplemental Petition — Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_0205%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Supplemental Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1978 - **Citation:** 434 U.S. 1068 ## Text — eesen “IN THE Supreme Court of thy United States Octroner Terai, 1977 No. 77-856 Pamurs Perrocerm Company, Petitioner, Ve Intl. Suvurrs, as Executor of the Estate of Althea Shutts, Individually, and as representative of all that class of gas royalty owners under Phillips Petroleum Company oil and gas leases in the Hagoton- Anadarko area, Respondents. SUPPLEMENT TO THE PETITION Crank M. Enron Carson M. Grass Ropert A, ALTMAN JOHN G. CALENDER Crom, Giass, McTLwatrn & FINNEY 815 Connecticut Ave. Washington. D.C. 20006 JoserH W. KENNEDY Morris, Laisa, Evans, Brock & KENNEDY Suite 430, 200 West Douglas Wiehita, Kansas 67202 KENNETH IIa C. J. Roberts T. L. Cuprace II — — Pagss or Braon S. Abans Pixx d, INc., Wasnineton, D. C. IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OctoBer TERM, 1977 No. 77-856 Puiuirs PeTroLeUM Company, Petitioner, V. Int SHutts, as Executor of the Estate of Althea Shutts, Individually, and as representative of all that class of gas royalty owners under Phillips Petroleum Company oil and gas leases in the Hugoton-Anadarko area, Respondents. SUPPLEMENT TO THE PETITION Pursuant to Rule 24(5) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, Petitioner Phillips Petro- leum Company (‘‘Phillips’’) submits this supplement to the petition to call attention to an intervening mat- ter not available at the time of the filing of the peti- tion. On February 1, 1978, the Texas Supreme Court in Phillips Petroleum Company v. Stahl Petroleum Com- pany,’ No. B-6813 (Tex. Sup.) granted Phillips’ Ap- * The case being reviewed is reported below in Stahl Petroleum Company v. Phillips Petroleum Company, 550 S. W. 2d 360 (Tex. Civ. App.— Amarillo, 1977). 2 plication for Writ of Error for the purpose of review- ing the question of whether the award of interest on additional royalty payments for the period during which the ascertainment of the amount due was de- layed by operation of federal law is contrary to Texas Law. (See Letter from Clerk, Texas Supreme Court, Feb. 1, 1978 at App. la-2a) The Stahl case, like the in- stant case, arises out of the Hugoton-Anadarko rate making area and the issuance of Federal Power Com- mission Opinion No. 586. The Kansas Supreme Court specifically relied on federal cases applying Texas law and on the Stahl ease in holding against Phillips in the instant case.’ The recent granting of the Application for Writ of Error in the Stahl case indicates, however, that the law in Texas, upon which the federal decisions are grounded, is by no means settled as respondents argue * As the Kansas Supreme Court stated : In ing we also note a long line of federal cases have con- cluded Texas law permits—and equity requires—the award of interest on suspense royalties under similar circumstances. (Phillips Petroleum Company v. Adams, 513 F.2d 355, 365 (5th Cir. 1975], cert. denied, 423 U.S. 930, 46 L.Ed.2d 259, 96 S.Ct. 281; First Nat. Bank of Borger v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 513 F.2d 371 [5th Cir. 1975], cert. denied, 423 U.S, 930, 46 L.Ed. 2d 259, 96 S.Ct. 281; Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Riverview Gas Compression Company, 513 F.2d 374 [5th Cir. 1975], cert. denied, 423 U.S. 930, 46 L.Ed.2d 259, 96 S.Ct. 281; Phillé Petroleum Co. v. Hazlewood, 534 F.2d 61 [5th Cir. 1976]; Fuller v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 408 F.Supp. 643 [N. D. Tex. 1976]; and Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Hazlewood, F. Supp. 1193 [N.D. Tex. 1975].) In addition, the Texas Civil Court of Appeals recently awarded interest on suspended royalties in Stahl Petroleum Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 550 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. Civ. App. No. 8762, filed April 6, 1977.) This case also arises out of the Hugoton-Anadarko area and the issuance of FPC Opinion No. 586. (Appendix to Petition for Certiorari at 56a) 3 and as the Kansas Supreme Court believes. Indeed, in two of the cases cited by the Kansas Supreme Court in support of its position, Phillips Petroleum Com- pany v. Hazlewood, 534 F.2d 61 (5th Cir. 1976), pend- ing on motion for rehearing, No. 76-1290, and Fuller v. Phillips Petroleum Company, 408 F. Supp. 643 (N.D. Tex. 1976), appeal pending, No. 76-2179 (5th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has stayed further consideration pending reso- lution of the interest issue by the Texas Supreme Court. (See Letter from Clerk, United States Court of Appeals for Fifth Circuit at App. 3a) The recent action of the Texas Supreme Court, and the reliance by federal covrts and the Kansas Supreme Court on what they may have mistakenly believed to be Texas law, illustrates the need for Supreme Court guidance on the important issue of whether the award of interest for the period when the final payment of additional royalties was delayed by operation of fed- eral law so offends notions of fairness as to be violative of the Due Process Clause. Respectfully submitted, 4 CLARK M. CLIFFORD Carson M. Grass Rospert A. ALTMAN JOHN G. CALENDER CLiFForD, GLASS, McILwatn & FINNEY 815 Connecticut Ave. Washington, D.C. 20006 JosePH W. KENNEDY Morris, Laine, Evans, Brock & KENNEDY Suite 430, 200 West Douglas Wichita, Kansas 67202 KENNETH HEapy C. J. Ropers T. L. Cuspace II Phillips Petroleum Com Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74004 APPENDIX la APPENDIX THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS P. O. Box 12248 CAPITOL STATION AUSTIN, TEXAS February 1, 1978 CHIEF JUSTICE CLERK JOE R. GREENHILL GARSON R. JACKSON JUSTICES EXEC. ADMINISTRATIVE Ass’T. ZOLLIE STEAKLEY WILLIAM L. WILLIS — ADMINISTRATIVE ASS’T. MOSES MARY ANN DEFIBAUGH JAMES d. DENTON PRICE DANIEL SAM D. JOHNSON CHARLES W. BARROW T. C. CHADWICK Mr. Lloyd Lochridge, Atty McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore Fifth Floor, Texas State Bank Bldg. 900 Congress Ave Austin, Texas 78701 Mr. Kenneth Heady, Mr. C. J. Roberts, Attys Phillips Petroleum Company Corporate Legal Staff Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74004 Mr. Jack Ritchie, Atty Mr. T. L. Cubbage II, Atty Mr. David B. McCall, Atty Phillips Petroleum Company Corporate Legal Staff Amarillo, Texas 79120 2a Mr. John C. Chambers, Atty Stone, Stone & Chambers 1701 American National Bank Bldg. Amarillo, Texas 79101 RE: B-6813: Pamurs Perrorzum Company v. SraglL Pe- TROLEUM COMPANY Seventh Court of Civil Appeals No. 8762 108th District Court of Potter County No. 55741 Gentlemen: Today, the Supreme Court of Texas granted the above referenced application for writ of error on points 1, 5 and 8. This cause has been set for submission and oral argument for Wednesday, February 22, 1978 at 9:00 a.m. Please indicate on the enclosed form which attorney/s will present oral argument, (see Texas Rules of Civil Proce- dure No. 498), and return the form to the Clerk’s Office at your earliest convenience. Also enclosed is a cost bill for the petitioner. Very truly yours, Ganson R. Jackson, Clerk /8/ by Mansy M. Waxeritp Mary M. Wakefield, Deputy Encl: argument form cost bill-petitioner 3a UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT OFFICE OF THE CLERK June 13, 1977 Epwarp W. WapsworTH OLERK To Aut CounseL or Recorp No. 76-1290—Phillips Petroleum Co. vs. Grady Hazlewood; Alstar Production Corp. No. 76-2144—Phillips Petroleum Co. vs. Riverview Gas Compression Co., Etc., Et Al. No. 76-2179—R. P. Fuller, Et Al vs. Phillips Petroleum Company. No. 76-2535—Van Norman Oil Co. vs. Phillips Petroleum Co. vs. American Petrofina Company of Texas. Dear Counsel: The Court has asked me to advise you that it will withhold action in the above matters until the adjournment of the Supreme Court of Texas this summer, in hopes that ac- tion on the applications for writ of error will by that time have been accomplished. Very truly yours, Epwarp W. WapswortH CLERK /s/ By GAR F. Ganvongau Gilbert F. Ganucheau Chief Deputy Clerk --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_0205%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.