Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,500+ case briefs...

The Trees Oil Company v. State Corporation Commission

Supreme Court of Kansas
105 P.3d 1269 (Kan. 2005)


Chesapeake Operating Inc. (Chesapeake) owned several oil wells and wished to unitize adjacent reservoirs connected by well bores and then use the process of water flooding to increase production across the entire unit. The Trees Oil Company (Trees) (plaintiff) owned a well on the boundary of Chesapeake’s proposed water flooding plan. The overwhelming majority of the owners in the proposed plan approved the unitization. Trees, however, did not want its well to be included. Chesapeake filed an application with the State Corporation Commission of Kansas (Commission) (defendant) to force the unitization of the tracts, including that of Trees. Under a Kansas unitization statute, “pool” is defined as “an underground accumulation of oil and gas in a single and separate natural reservoir characterized by a single pressure system so that production from one part of the pool affects the reservoir pressure throughout its extent.” At the proceeding before the Commission, Trees argued that the proposed forced pooling would violate this definition. Specifically, Trees submitted that two reservoirs could not be commingled in one unit, because the statute applied to a “single and separate natural reservoir.” Chesapeake stated that many wells in the proposed unit had commingled production from both reservoirs, and that good pressure communication existed across the entire proposed unit. Chesapeake also stated that the proposed increased oil recovery would not be available through primary production methods. Moreover, Chesapeake stated that Trees’s well would stand to benefit from the proposed water flooding, and that if Trees’s well was not included in the proposed unit several thousands of barrels of oil would migrate from the unit to Trees’s well. The Commission granted Chesapeake’s application. Trees appealed the Commission’s order to the Haskell County District Court. The district court affirmed the order. Trees appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning

Dissent (Luckert, 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 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 410,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,500 briefs, keyed to 223 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial