green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
52.3 score
“when the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.”
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Cunningham Prop. Mgmt. Trust v. Ascent Res. - Utica, LLC
as companies have a strong incentive to keep their costs down, as they will be paying seven-eighths 1064 of the costs
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kendall v. Lancaster Exploration & Dev. Co.
when the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
A&B Campbell Family LLC, et al. v. Williams Partners, L.P., et al.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
(Doc. 212, at 18); Kilmer v. Elexco Land Servs., Inc., 990 A.2d 1147, 1149 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Janie Slamon v. Carrizo (Marcellus) LLC
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Slamon Lease Agreement ¶ 4(b)(ii) (JA125); see Lewis Lease Agreement 1 ¶ 4(b)(ii) (JA359); Lewis Lease Agreement 2 ¶ 4(b)(ii) (JA373); cf. Kilmer, 990 A.2d at 1157 (explaining that if a royalty is ‘free of’ certain costs, those costs are not deducted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
A & B Campbell Family v. Chesakpeake Energy Corporation
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Kilmer v. Elexco Land Servs., Inc., 990 A.2d 1147, 1149 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
SWN Production Company, LLC and Equinor USA Onshore Properties, Inc. v. Charles Kellam, Phyllis Kellam, and all other persons and entities similarly situated
Va. at 274, 800 S.E.2d at 860 (citing Kilmer v. Elexco Land Servs, Inc., 990 A.2d 1147, 1155 (Pa. 2010) (recognizing that states adopting the marketable product rule “have done so as a matter of common law in interpreting ambiguities in leases, not through statutory interpretation of a preexisting statute.”)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Dressler Family v. PennEnergy Resources
(15×)
This rule “provides that because the lessee-gas company has a duty to market the natural gas, [it is] responsible for all post-production expenses until the product arrives at a downstream location where it can be marketed.” See Kilmer v. Elexco Land Services, Inc., 990 A.2d 1147, 1155 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
COASTAL FOREST RESOURCES COMPANY v. CHEVRON U.S.A., INC.
To do so, they are calculated as “one-eighth of the sale price of the gas minus one-eighth of the post-production costs of bringing the gas to the market.” Kilmer, 990 A.2d at 1149 (footnote omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Diehl v. SWN Production Company, LLC
Defendant posits that the pleading stage standard requires “some factual averment that the purported other sales location would have resulted in a higher royalty to the lessor after all post-production costs associated with getting the gas to that purported other sales point are deducted.” (Doc. 14 at 15 (citing Flanagan, 2015 WL 6736648 ; Kilmer v. Elexco Land Services, Inc., 990 A.2d 1147, 1154, 1157-58 (Pa. 2010) (recognizing that while prices further downstream may be higher, costs increase as well and those post-production costs must be netted out in order to determine sale price at w…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Zehentbauer Family Land LP v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C.
Elexco Land Servs., Inc., 990 A.2d 1147, 1158 (Pa. 2010) (Pennsylvania law “permit[s] the calculation of royalties at the wellhead, as provided by the net-back method in the Lease”); Schroeder v. Terra Energy, Ltd., 565 N.W.2d 887, 893-95 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997) (finding that 33 (4:15CV2449) leases using “at the wellhead” language must permit deduction of post-production costs to give effect to the language in the contract between the parties).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chambers v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.
The goal of that method "is to determine the value of the gas [at the wellhead] by deducting from the sales price the costs of getting the natural gas from the wellhead to the market." Id. at 1149 (footnote omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Niverth, G. v. Equitrans
In Kilmer v. Elexco Land Services, Inc., 990 A.2d 1147, 1149 (Pa. 2010), our Supreme Court discussed this calculation as follows: [T]he GMRA requires that leases guarantee the landowner-lessor “at least one-eighth royalty of all oil, natural gas or gas of other designations removed or recovered from the subject real property.” 58 P.S. § 33.[3] Although the critical term “royalty” is not defined by the statute, many leases in the Commonwealth, including the lease at issue before this Court, calculate the royalties as one-eighth of the sale price of the gas minus one- eighth of the post…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Patrick D. Leggett v. EQT Production Co.
(9×)
also: Cited "see"
The lessor/landowners likewise argued that the remedial “Guaranteed Minimum Royalty Act” was intended to “prevent deception and exploitation of Pennsylvania property owners by developers!)]” Id. at 1153.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Patrick D. and Katherine F. Leggett v. EQT Production Co.
Ct. App. 2000); Kilmer v. Elexco Land Servs., Inc., 990 A.2d 1147, 1158 (Pa. 2010); Heritage Res., Inc. v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118 , 122–23 (Tex. 1996), with Rogers v. Westerman Farm Co., 29 P.3d 887, 902 (Colo. 2001); syl. pt. 3, Gilmore v. Superior Oil Co., 388 P.2d 602 (Kan. 1964); Wood v. TXO Prod.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Patrick D. and Katherine F. Leggett v. EQT Production Co.
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Code § 22-4-1 (1982); Kilmer v. Elexco Land Services, 3 In drafting the legislation through which the statutory section at act was enacted, the Legislature considered and rejected earlier versions of the statute that would have omitted “at the wellhead” and instead required payments based merely on “gross proceeds” or the “total amount” received. 3 Inc., 990 A.2d 1147, 1155 (Pa. 2010) (discussing fact that in 1979, pre-deregulation “the wellhead was the point of royalty measurement” and further explaining that gas was less valuable at this stage of valuation than after its alt…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
David Pollock v. Energy Corporation of America
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Although there is some variation in the terms of the respective leases, “the leases all generally provide that [Appellees] are entitled to -a royalty of one-eighth of the net proceeds received from the sale of gas.” (J.A. 8.) The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has held that post-production costs—the transportation and marketing costs incurred once the gas enters the interstate pipeline to bring the gas to market—are properly deductible from the gross proceeds of gas sales prior to the disbursement of royalties, a process called the “netback method.” 1 Kilmer v. Elexco Land Servs., I…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lauchle v. Keeton Group LLC
In doing so, we explicitly relied upon the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s rationale in Kilmer v. Elexco Land Services, Inc., 605 Pa. 413 , 990 A.2d 1147, 1158 (2010).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Board of Revision of Taxes, City of Philadelphia v. City of Philadelphia
Commonwealth v. Janssen Pharmaceutical Inc., 2 A.3d 474 (Pa.2010); Kilmer v. Elexco Land Servs., Inc., 990 A.2d 1147, 1151, 1158 (Pa.2010).
discussed
Cited "see"
Melcroft Coal Company, Inc. v. Robindale Energy Services, Inc. & LCT Energy, L.P.
See Kilmer v. Elexco Land Servs., Inc., 990 A.2d 1147, 1158 (Pa. 2010) (allowing for post-production deductions in calculating royalty based on value “at the wellhead”). whether they modified a contract.
cited
Cited "see"
Chambers v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC
(Doc. 122, at 9); see Kilmer v. Elexco Land Servs., 990 A.2d 1147, 1149 (Pa. 2010); cf Roe v. Chief Expl. & Dev.
cited
Cited "see"
Baker v. Magnum Hunter Production, Inc.
See Kilmer v. Elexco Land Services, Inc., 605 Pa. 413 , 990 A.2d 1147 (2010), and Bice v. Petro-Hunt, L.L.C., 768 N.W.2d 496 (N.D. 2009).
cited
Cited "see"
Kropa v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp.
See Kilmer v. Elexco Land Svcs., Inc., 990 A.2d 1147 (Pa.2010).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hernandez, J. v. Independence Constr. Corp.
See e.g., Kilmer v. Elexco Land Services, Inc., 990 A.2d 1147, 1157 (Pa. 2010) (rejecting the common definition of the word “royalty,” in interpreting that term in the Guaranteed Minimum Royalty Act, and instead applying, consistent with our rules of statutory interpretation, “the definition it has acquired in the oil and gas industry”); Sackett v. Nationwide Mutual Ins.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Mun. Auth. of Westmoreland Cnty. v. CNX Gas Co.
(Doc. 50 ¶ 9; Doc. 54 ¶ 9); see also Kilmer , 990 A.2d at 1149-50 & n.3.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
William Smith v. Steckman Ridge LP
See, e.g., Kilmer v. Elexco Land Servs., Inc., 605 Pa. 413 , 990 A.2d 1147, 1157 (2010) (citing Williams & Meyers for the definition of the term royalty); Szymanowski v. Brace, 987 A.2d 717, 724 (Pa.Super.Ct.2009) (citing Williams & Meyers for the definition of overriding royalty). 6 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William GILLARD, Respondent
v.
AIG INSURANCE COMPANY and AIG and the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and Key Auto Insurance Plan and AIG Claims Services, Petitioner
v.
AIG INSURANCE COMPANY and AIG and the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and Key Auto Insurance Plan and AIG Claims Services, Petitioner
72 EAL 2008.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Mar 16, 2010.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 16th day of March, 2010, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, paraphrased for clarity, are:
a. Whether the attorney-client privilege applies to communications from the attorney to the client.
b. Whether the Superior Court erred in holding the attorney-client privilege applies only to confidential communications from the client to the attorney, pursuant to Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Fleming, 924 A.2d 1259 (Pa.Super.2007).