Here's one as cliché as beach cases from Hawaii: an opinion from a Texas court about the meaning of the term "crude petroleum" in the Texas Natural Resource Code. Oil that is. Black gold. Texas Tea.
It's also another pipeline case from the Texas Court of Appeals (Ninth District) -- the same panel that on the same day held that TransCanada is a common carrier possessing the power of eminent domain. Except in this case, the court held that Crosstex, which held a permit from the Texas Railroad Commission to build a liquid natural gas pipeline is not a common carrier because a pipeline used to transport LNG is not the same as a pipeline used to transport crude petroleum. Crosstex NGL Pipeline, L.P. v. Reins Road Farms-1, Ltd., No. 09-12-00563 (May 23, 2013).
The case was Crosstex's appeal from the trial court's denial of its request for an injuction to prohibit the property owner from interfering with Crosstex's attempts to survey the land. The court of appeals held that "on this record" the trial court did not abuse its discretion: (1) on the "likely to succeed on the merits" factor, Crosstex had not shown that its pipeline would transport crude petroleum; and (2) neither party had requested the trial court enter findings of fact or conclusion of law, meaning the court of appeals reviewed the decision with almost insurmountable deference ("we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's order and indulge every reasonable inference in its favor").
Compare this similar ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court.
Crosstex NGL Pipeline, L.P. v. Reins Road Farms-1, Ltd., No. 09-12-00563-CV (Tex. App. May 23, 2013)
