# Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. v. Mobil Pipe Line Co.

Supreme Court of Texas, No. 25-0063

**Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. v. Mobil Pipe Line Co., No. 25-0063, is before the Supreme Court of Texas. Key issue: The Court granted the petition, vacated the trial court's orders and the court of appeals' judgment, and remanded for rendition of judgment under the parties' settlement without reaching the merits, but denied the parties' request to vacate the court of appeals' opinion.**

Practice areas: civil procedure, real property, oil, and gas

## Key issues

- The Court granted the petition, vacated the trial court's orders and the court of appeals' judgment, and remanded for rendition of judgment under the parties' settlement without reaching the merits, but denied the parties' request to vacate the court of appeals' opinion.
- The petition argued that the appeal from a temporary injunction protecting pipelines was moot once construction ended and that the injunction was not vague or overbroad.

## Factual History
Energy Transfer sued Exxon in Liberty County over Exxon's construction of the Beaumont Connector Pipeline across and close to Energy Transfer's existing easements and pipelines, alleging unsafe construction practices. The parties signed a January 2023 settlement setting minimum safety standards, and Energy Transfer says Exxon broke it in February 2023 when it received the estimated cost of compliance (Petition for Review, PDF pp. 11-12).

## Procedural History
The trial court granted a temporary injunction after a three-day hearing; while Exxon's appeal was pending, construction ended and Energy Transfer moved to dismiss the appeal as moot. The Ninth Court of Appeals (Beaumont) denied that motion and reversed the injunction as vague in two provisions (2024 WL 5087334). Energy Transfer petitioned for review February 6, 2025, the parties settled, and on May 16, 2025 the Court granted their joint motion in part.

## Issues Presented
Whether an appellate court may decide the merits of a temporary injunction that is moot after construction ended, and whether the injunction was vague or overbroad (Petition for Review, PDF p. 10).

## Legal Arguments
**Sunoco Pipeline, Orbit Gulf Coast NGL Exports and Energy Transfer GC NGL Pipelines (Petitioners):** the injunction expired when construction ended and the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction, and in any event it was no more vague than similar injunctions other courts have affirmed (Petition for Review, PDF pp. 10, 14).

## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case
Not applicable; the case ended on a motion.

## Practice Area Tags
civil-procedure, real-property, oil-and-gas

## Procedural Posture/Vehicle
Petition for review from the Ninth Court of Appeals in an appeal from a temporary injunction; disposed under Rule 56.3 on a joint motion to dismiss pursuant to settlement (May 16, 2025 orders). See the concurring opinion issued in No. 24-0206, Megatel C90-2, Inc. v. Bank of Utah.

## Amicus Involvement
None noted

---
Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/25-0063. 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.