Stack v. Harris

242 So. 2d 857, 38 O. & G.R. 1 (1970)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Stack v. Harris

Mississippi Supreme Court
242 So. 2d 857, 38 O. & G.R. 1 (1970)

Facts

Section 6132-21(c) of the Mississippi Code (the statute) provided that oil wells had to be drilled in accordance with rules promulgated by the state oil-and-gas board (the board). The statute also provided that drilled wells had to follow the board’s approved well-spacing pattern for the relevant oil pool, subject to limited exceptions. If an exception was granted, the board could offset any advantage drilling the exception well might give the well’s operator over other producers. However, the statute limited the board’s ability to reduce the allowable amount of daily oil production—or allowables—by an exception well. One board rule, General Rule 14 (the rule), provided that no well could be directionally deviated from its original course without prior board authorization, except for intentional deviations necessary to straighten the hole or address mechanical difficulties. If intentional deviation occurred, the board had to approve the well as completed. The rule gave the board the right to assess penalties on allowable oil production to adjust any inequities caused by the directional drilling. J. W. Harris (plaintiff) received permission to drill an exception well in the Smackover Sands oilfield to a depth of roughly 12,000 feet. At that depth, the typical allowable production amount was 400 barrels of oil per day. As Harris’s well was being drilled, Harris learned that the well was drifting toward a dry hole. Harris changed the well’s direction 180 degrees and continued drilling until the well’s bottom nearly intersected with active drilling units owned by J. E. Stack and others (defendants). In that location, Harris’s exception well would drain from Stack’s wells. The board approved Harris’s completed well but limited allowable production to 150 barrels of oil per day to address the directional deviation and drainage. Harris appealed in state circuit court. The court concluded that the statute prohibited the board from reducing the allowable production from Harris’s exception well. Stack appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Jones, J.)

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 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership