Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06237/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06237-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mewbourne Oil Company
Appellee
Shirley Turley
Appellant
Windle Turley
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

United States Co~rt of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

WINDLE TURLEY, et ux. 

SHIRLEY TURLEY, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

MEWBOURNE OIL COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

MAY 2 19 O 

R.OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-6237 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-174-W) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

715 F. Supp. 1052 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiffs Windle and Shirley Turley sought declaratory and 

injunctive relief to prevent Mewbourne Oil Company from carrying 

out an order of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission establishing 

drilling and spacing units on acreage that includes their land. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-6237 Document: 01019967287 Date Filed: 05/02/1990 Page: 1 
The Turleys own only the surface rights and were not given notice 

of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission proceeding in which the new 

drilling and spacing units were established. 

process and equal protection violations. 

They assert due 

The Turleys litigated this matter first in the Oklahoma state 

court system, with the Oklahoma Supreme Court deciding against 

them. See Turley v. Flag-Redfern Oil Co., 60 Okla. B. J. 2813 

(Oct. 1989). During the pendency of that appeal they sought 

relief on the same grounds in the federal district court below, 

which also decided the merits against them. See Turley v. 

Mewbourne Oil Co., 715 F. Supp. 1052 (W.D. Okla. 1989). We affirm 

for substantially the reasons stated in both of those reported 

decisions. 

AFFIRMED. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-6237 Document: 01019967287 Date Filed: 05/02/1990 Page: 2