Court Opinion

ID: 9779107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:36:26.839623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:21.468364
License: Public Domain

REED, Chief Justice
(separate concurring opinion).
The opinion of Justice STEPHENSON is an excellent analysis of the development of mineral law that culminated in the unfortunate decision in Buchanan v. Watson.
My main concern is in giving a retrospective effect to the overruling of Buchanan. The reliance of parties on the law as specifically pronounced has especial significance in voluntary relationships between parties concerning property rights. I have no hesitation in applying Justice STEPHENSON’S decision prospectively. I could not, how*870ever, destroy the property rights of parties who entered into voluntary relationships in the light of plainly expressed existing law.
Strict regulation and application of our nuisance theory approach are not, in my judgment, an impingement on the existing legal expectations of parties who acquired their rights under existing laws.