WebJan 21, 2024 · Those of you following along with each chapter of the saga know the drill by now (pun is intended): The strip-and-gore doctrine acts to pass title to lands in addition to lands described in a... Web“strip and gore” doctrine was not an available defense to the District; (3) the State’s inconsistent statements in prior pleadings were not judicial admissions and could not contradict the terms of the unambiguous Caldwell Patent; and (4) the State was not equitably estopped from challenging the District’s title to the property.
Oil & Gas Law - University of Houston Law Center
Web2. Fractional Interests A “persistently fertile source of title problems” ALSO a “persistently fertile source of BAR EXAM QUESTIONS” Fractions confuse people Like termites in a house, once they enter the chain of title, they stay / persevere / multiply Like all the other conveyancing / reservation / WebMar 14, 2024 · In the Supreme Court of Texas, XTO argued that adjacent landowners were mandatory parties because (1) they have a claim to the Crawford Tract minerals as a matter of law by virtue of the strip-and-gore doctrine; (2) a judgment in Crawford's favor, which would require a determination that the plaintiff owns the Crawford Tract despite the 1984 ... gesher gateshead
MOORE v. ENERGY STATES INC (2002) FindLaw
WebMay 16, 2024 · The Taylors argue that by applying common law presumptions to their chain of title, they own in fee simple a portion of land up to the centerline of a larger 60-foot wide strip of land (the Torian Lane Strip) that abuts their property (Abutting 30' Strip). WebFeb 27, 2014 · From the best of my knowledge and research The strip and gore doctrine requires the strip (1) to be small in comparison to the land conveyed, (2) to be adjacent to or surrounded by the land conveyed, (3) to belong to the grantor at the time of conveyance, (4) to be of insignificant or little practical value. WebJan 9, 2007 · The strip-and-gore doctrine does not apply to grant TH Investments ownership of Tract 2 because the tracts in question are not contiguous. Houston's 14th Court of Appeals, 14-05-00204-CV. gesher house