Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Hysaw v. Dawkins

Supreme Court of Texas
__ S.W.3d __ (2016)


Facts

Ethel Hysaw (Ethel) owned three tracts of land subject to oil and gas leases. Ethel’s will, which was executed in 1947, devised to each of her three children a portion of the tracts and a royalty interest. The will stated: “each of my children shall have and hold an undivided one-third (1/3) of an undivided one-eighth (1/8) of all oil, gas or other mineral in or under” the tracts of land. The will also stated that if Ethel sold any of her royalty interests prior to her death, her children would “each receive one-third of the remainder of the unsold royalty.” The successors in interest to Inez Foote (Inez successors) (defendants), one of Ethel’s children, negotiated a one-fifth royalty on the tract of land that Inez had acquired through the will. The Inez successors claimed that the will devised floating royalties, initially equally to one-twenty-fourth, but subject to change if they negotiated a different royalty in the future. The Inez successors sought one-third of the one-fifth royalty negotiated on the Inez tract. The successors in interest to Dorothy Burris and Howard Hysaw (Dorothy/Howard successors) (plaintiffs), Ethel’s other children, argued that Ethel intended that the children’s royalty shares be equally divided from the total royalty from all three tracts, and thus the will devised one-third fixed royalties to each child. The Dorothy/Howard successors claimed that the Inez successors were entitled to only one-third of the total royalties collected on all three tracts, combined. The trial court granted the Dorothy/Howard successors’ motion for summary judgment. The trial court found that by “one-eighth,” Ethel was using industry shorthand for the entire royalty, because at the time of the will’s execution, all oil and gas royalties were one-eighth. The court of appeals reversed. The Dorothy/Howard successors appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Guzman, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.