Humberston v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
2013 PA Super 238, 75 A.3d 504 (2013)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Paul and Carol Humberston (plaintiffs) owned a tract of land and leased the mineral rights to the predecessor in interest of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (Chevron) (defendant) in 2006. The lease stated that Chevron’s predecessor was entitled to subsurface minerals, as well as any “exclusive rights as may be necessary or convenient for [Chevron’s predecessor] . . . to explore for, develop, produce, measure, and market production from the Leasehold, and from adjoining lands, using methods and techniques which are not restricted to current technology.” Chevron constructed a freshwater-storage impoundment on the Humberstons’ land. The impoundment was necessary for Chevron to be able to conduct hydraulic fracturing (hydrofracking), a process that Chevron deemed necessary to extract minerals from the land and other lands within the Humberstons’ pooled unit. In 2011, the Humberstons brought suit to quiet title and for trespass, alleging that Chevron did not have the right under the lease or otherwise to construct the impoundment. The trial court dismissed the Humberstons’ complaint. The Humberstons appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bender, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.