Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05141/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05141-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Maxus Exploration Company
Appellee
Unit Texas Company
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

United Stat.e Court of Appeals "'- • · ' • 1-.. '.'!dt 

UNIT TEXAS COMPANY, an Oklahoma 

corporation, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

MAXUS EXPLORATION COMPANY, 

a Delaware corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

OCT231q90 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-5141 

(D.C. No. 88-C-548-E) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

Before McKAY, McWILLIAMS, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

In their briefs, the parties waived oral argument. 

Furthermore, 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. 

Plaintiff appeals the district court's order of 

July 13, 1989, denying plaintiff's motion for sununary judgment and 

granting defendant's motion for sununary judgment. Both 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value a~d 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: 89-5141 Document: 010110064818 Date Filed: 10/23/1990 Page: 1 
parties sought declaratory relief from the court concerning the 

meaning and effect of certain price provisions in four similar gas 

purchase contracts, as well as the meaning and effect of 

plaintiff's ratification of two of those contracts. In addition, 

plaintiff sought damages from defendant for breach of contract. 

The cross motions for summary judgment raised essentially two 

issues: whether defendant had the right to "market out" of the 

Waters, Price, Hoover, and Yauck contracts in 1986, having 

previously done so in 1985; and whether plaintiff's ratification 

of the Hoover and Yauck contracts gave it the right, independent 

of the operator, to accept or reject the price proposed by 

defendant when it marketed out of those contracts. The district 

court decided that defendant did have the right to market out of 

the four contracts in 1986 and that plaintiff did not have an 

independent right to accept or reject defendant's proposed price. 

It therefore entered judgment for defendant. 

We review the grant or .denial of summary judgment de novo, 

applying the same standards as the district court under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Abercrombie v. City of Catoosa, 896 F.2d 

1228, 1230 (10th Cir. 1990). Based upon our review of the 

parties' briefs, the record on appeal, and the pertinent law, we 

conclude the district court properly entered summary judgment in 

favor of defendant. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-5141 Document: 010110064818 Date Filed: 10/23/1990 Page: 2 
Therefore, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED for 

substantially the reasons set forth in its order of July 13, 1989. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-5141 Document: 010110064818 Date Filed: 10/23/1990 Page: 3