# Opiela v. R.R. Comm'n of Tex.

Supreme Court of Texas, No. 23-0772

**Opiela v. R.R. Comm'n of Tex., No. 23-0772, is before the Supreme Court of Texas. Key issue: The Court granted the petition, vacated the court of appeals' judgment and remanded to the trial court under the parties' settlement in a challenge to the Railroad Commission's permit for a multi-tract horizontal well drilled without the mineral owners' consent.**

Practice areas: oil and gas, administrative law

## Key issues

- The Court granted the petition, vacated the court of appeals' judgment and remanded to the trial court under the parties' settlement in a challenge to the Railroad Commission's permit for a multi-tract horizontal well drilled without the mineral owners' consent.

## Factual History
The Opielas own the minerals in a 637-acre Karnes County tract under a lease that says nothing in it authorizes the lessee "in any manner whatever" to pool the land for oil. Magnolia, the current operator, drilled the Audioslave A 102H horizontal well across three tracts, including the Opielas', and obtained a Railroad Commission permit as a Production Sharing Agreement well, which requires signatures from owners of only 65% of the interest in each tract; the Opielas did not sign or consent (Petition for Review, PDF pp. 12-14).

## Procedural History
The Opielas challenged the permit; the Commission issued it over their complaint and the court of appeals upheld it. They petitioned November 22, 2023, and after merits briefing the parties filed a joint motion for reversal and remand under a settlement. On January 31, 2025 the Court granted it under Rule of Appellate Procedure 56.3: without considering the merits it granted the petition, vacated the court of appeals' judgment, and remanded to the trial court for proceedings in accordance with the settlement; Justice Young did not participate (January 31, 2025 orders; Docket).

## Issues Presented
The petition asked whether the Commission may permit multi-tract horizontal wells where owners have not consented to pooling and only 65% have signed a production sharing agreement, whether its rules for such wells are invalid for not following APA rulemaking, and whether it wrongly ignored the lease's anti-pooling clause (Petition for Review, PDF p. 10). The Court did not reach them.

## Legal Arguments
**Opielas (Petitioners):** the Commission lacks authority to permit such wells without pooling or Mineral Interest Pooling Act procedures, its 65% rule was adopted without APA rulemaking, and it ignored the lease's anti-pooling clause (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF p. 20).

## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case
The order rests on the parties' settlement; the Court did not consider the petition's reasons for review (January 31, 2025 orders).

## Practice Area Tags
oil-and-gas, administrative-law

## Procedural Posture/Vehicle
Petition for review from the Third Court of Appeals; granted and judgment vacated and remanded on a joint motion for reversal and remand under settlement, Rule of Appellate Procedure 56.3 (January 31, 2025 orders).

## Amicus Involvement
None noted

---
Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/23-0772. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.