Court Opinion

ID: 9598834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:12:23.952371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:42.797999
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Frantz
specially concurring in the result:
Although I concur in the result reached by the majority, I would confine the holding of the case to its particular facts.
The main question presented on this writ is whether or not depreciation to surrounding land caused simply by the presence of a wellhead or similar installation is *555compensable under paragraph 11 of the Colorado Oil and Gas Lease operative in this case. I agree it is not, but would go no further than that.
The court goes far beyond this with its language. It holds “that land damages are limited to the surface used by Frankfort only . . (emphasis supplied), never defining what is meant by the term “used” other than to later refer to the “operations specified” and “the actual authorized operations on the land.”
“Use” is a relative term. The majority claims it has so used it but this is too subtle a reading of its remarks for me to comprehend. In my view it should specifically be understood by those who would look to this case as authority that it in fact holds only that mere presence on part of leased land is not necessarily a use of the remainder. Other “operations,” as that term appears in the lease, could be a partial taking and, therefore, a compensable use.