Corporation Commission - Right of action of injured owner and costs of suit - Statute of limitations. A. The district courts within this state shall have the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine the entitlement of any owner in a well to: 1. Its share of proceeds from production; or 2. Damages, interest, court costs, attorney fees or allowable litigation expenses incurred as a result of the violation of the Production Revenue Standards Act. B. Any rulemaking power granted to the Corporation Commission by the Production Revenue Standards Act shall neither preclude nor impair the right of any owner to obtain through the district courts remedies available under existing law or additional remedies herein granted to any owner injured in business or property by reason of any action in violation of the provisions of the Production Revenue Standards Act. C. Any owner injured in business or property by reason of any action in violation of the provisions of the Production Revenue Standards Act shall have the right to:
1. Recover actual damages so sustained; and 2. Obtain specific performance where equitable. The prevailing party in any court proceeding brought pursuant to the Production Revenue Standards Act shall be entitled to recover the costs of the suit, including but not limited to reasonable attorney and expert witness fees. D. 1. For purposes of the Production Revenue Standards Act, the statute of limitations on actions brought pursuant to the provisions of the Production Revenue Standards Act shall be five (5) years from the date the cause of action shall have accrued; provided, however, nothing shall create, limit or expand any statute of limitations applicable to production occurring prior to September 1, 1992. 2. The statute of limitations provided for pursuant to this subsection shall also apply to the Commissioners of the Land Office. Added by Laws 1992, c. 190, § 14, eff. Sept. 1, 1992. Amended by Laws 2024, c. 80, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2024.
Notes of Decisions
Okland Oil Co. v. Conoco Inc., 144 F.3d 1308 (10th Cir. 1998).
· cites it 2× “In fact, Okla. Stat. tit. 52, § 570.14 (B) makes it clear that § 570.”
Fleet v. Sanguine, Ltd., 854 P.2d 892 (Okla. 1993).
· cites it 2× “See 52 O.S.Supp.1992 § 570.14(A)(2), which provides that district courts shall have jurisdiction to determine the entitlement of any owner in a well to: 62 .”
Purcell v. Santa Fe Minerals, Inc., 1998 OK 45 (Okla. 1998).
“52 O.S.Supp.1992 § 570.14(D). This statute also shows that the limitations period does not apply to production occurring prior to September 1, 1992.”
Base v. Devon Energy Prod., 2024 OK 3 (Okla. 2024).
· cites it 10× “2011, § 1651 and the PRSA, 52 O.S.2011, § 570.14, are precluded insofar as they are all "derivative" claims "contingent on a threshold ruling in [the Trust']s favor on quiet title.”
Tarrant v. Capstone Oil & Gas Co., 2008 OK CIV APP 17 (Okla. Civ. App. 2007).
“52 O.S.2001 § 570.14(A) and (C). However, the pre-trial minute order stated the issues under the PRSA were resolved except for the attorney fees issue, which was reserved until the conclusion of the case.”
Tulsa Energy, Inc. v. KPL Prod. Co., 111 F.3d 88 (10th Cir. 1997).
· cites it 2× “(Dalco), and (2) awarding Dalco attorney’s fees as the prevailing party under Okla. Stat. tit. 52 § 570.14. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
Cockerell Oil Props., Ltd. v. Unit Petroleum Co. (E.D. Okla. 2020).
“” Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 52, § 570.14 . representation is made or from whom the facts are concealed must have been without knowledge, or the means of knowledge, of the real facts; 4) the misrepresentation or concealment must have been made with the intention that it should be…”
Stephenson v. Gulfport Energy Corp. (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 2021).
“Okla. Stat. tit. 52, § 570.14 . 12 e “Plaintiffs do not consent to the Bankruptcy Court’s entry of a final order in the Adversary Proceeding and may demand a trial by jury under Oklahoma law and FED.”
Kevin L. Jeter; Joe A. Jeter; Barbara Lucas; James H. Miller; Sharon Rigsby Miller; Larry Smith; Janice Sue Parker v. Vetsus Wild West Gas, LLC; Wild West Gas, Inc.; Bullseye Energy, LLC; Fountainhead, LLC; KRS&K; CEP Mid-Continent, LLC; Robert M. Kane; Louise Kane Roark; Ann Kane Seidman; Mark Kane; Pamela Brown; Gary Brown; Gashoma, Inc.; Purgatory Creek Gas, Inc.; Redbird Oil; White Hawk Gas, Inc.; & Kevin L. Jeter; Joe A. Jeter; Barbara Lucas; James H. Miller; Sharon Rigsby Miller; Larry Smith; Janice Sue Parker; James D. Enloe; Carolyn R. Enloe; Scott Baily v. CEP Mid-Continent, LLC; Robert M. Kane; Louise Kane Roark; Ann Kane Seidman; Mark Kane; Pamela Brown; Gary Brown (N.D. Okla. 2026).
“B; Okla. Stat. tit. 52, §570.14 .C. It is the Court’s role to determine what constitutes a reasonable, proper fee award.”
Tulsa Energy, Inc. v. KPL Prod. Co., 110 F.3d 88 (10th Cir. 1997).
· cites it 2× “(Dalco), and (2) awarding Dalco attorney’s fees as the prevailing party under Okla. Stat. tit. 52 § 570.14. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 52, § 570.14(A) — 1 case
Tarrant v. Capstone Oil & Gas Co., 2008 OK CIV APP 17 (Okla. Civ. App. 2007).
“52 O.S.2001 § 570.14(A) and (C). However, the pre-trial minute order stated the issues under the PRSA were resolved except for the attorney fees issue, which was reserved until the conclusion of the case.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 52, § 570.14(A)(2) — 1 case
Fleet v. Sanguine, Ltd., 854 P.2d 892 (Okla. 1993).
“See 52 O.S.Supp.1992 § 570.14(A)(2), which provides that district courts shall have jurisdiction to determine the entitlement of any owner in a well to: 62 .”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 52, § 570.14(C) — 1 case
Fleet v. Sanguine, Ltd., 854 P.2d 892 (Okla. 1993).
“See 52 O.S.Supp.1992 § 570.14(A)(2), which provides that district courts shall have jurisdiction to determine the entitlement of any owner in a well to: 62 .”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 52, § 570.14(D) — 3 cases
Purcell v. Santa Fe Minerals, Inc., 1998 OK 45 (Okla. 1998).
“52 O.S.Supp.1992 § 570.14(D). This statute also shows that the limitations period does not apply to production occurring prior to September 1, 1992.”
Base v. Devon Energy Prod., 2024 OK 3 (Okla. 2024).
“2011, § 1651 and the PRSA, 52 O.S.2011, § 570.14, are precluded insofar as they are all "derivative" claims "contingent on a threshold ruling in [the Trust']s favor on quiet title.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.