Conley v. Comstock Oil & Gas, LP, 356 S.W.3d 755

Background

Conley claims ownership of minerals beneath the Escobeda Survey, which allegedly predates the Colville and Hampton surveys, and sues Comstock Oil & Gas and landowners operating wells in the Hamman Unit.
The Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas (Tribe) is a defendant and asserts tribal sovereign immunity from suit in state court.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Comstock and Landowners, and Conley took nothing; the Tribe’s plea to jurisdiction was denied, leading to appellate review.
Conley seeks a boundary determination of the Escobeda relative to Colville and Hampton surveys and to establish Conley’s superior title to minerals under three Hamman wells.
Historically, Collins and Kilgore addressed conflicts between Escobeda and nearby surveys; Swilley and Howland discuss stare decisis and acquiescence in title, influencing later rulings on boundary location and title.
The court ultimately holds that stare decisis/res judicata do not fix the Escobeda’s location as a matter of law and that the Tribe’s immunity requires dismissal, while affirming the denial of Conley’s claims against Tribe and upholding judgment for others.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tribe immunity bars Conley’s suit	Conley argues declaratory relief may proceed despite immunity.	Tribe asserts tribal sovereign immunity precludes suit absent waiver by Congress.	Tribe immunity applies; dismissal granted.
Whether Conley is entitled to partial summary judgment on Escobeda location	Collins/Kilgore lines support non-conflict andAntedates.	Conley cannot rely on preclusive boundaries to establish law-specific location.	Stare decisis does not fix Escobeda’s location; denial of Conley’s partial summary judgment affirmed.
Whether res judicata bars Conley’s claims	Kilgore’s judgments bind the current claims via privity and same core relief sought.	Kilgore did not adjudicate the present scope; privity insufficient.	Res judicata defense fails; not barred.
Whether the doctrine of presumed lost deed supports title to minerals	Conley argues the Escobeda chain and ancient deeds support a grant by presumption.	The long acquiescence and absence of asserted claims indicate no grant; presumption applies to earlier, undisputed deeds.	Summary judgment on presumed grant is proper; Conley’s other theories fail.
Whether adverse possession theories extend to the mineral estate	Comstock asserts possession under color of title for three-, five-, or ten-year periods.	Evidence does not prove continuous possession or color of title for the relevant periods.	Five-year and ten-year limits not met; adverse possession not established for minerals.

Key Cases Cited

Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 528 U.S. 751 (U.S. 1999) (tribal immunity depends on Congressional authorization or waiver)
Comstock Oil & Gas Inc. v. Alabama & Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas, 261 F.3d 567 (5th Cir. 2001) (declaratory relief boundaries; immunity limitations)
TTEA v. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo, 181 F.3d 676 (5th Cir. 1999) (federal declaratory relief; jurisdiction considerations)
Kilgore v. Black Stone Oil Co., 15 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2000) (stare decisis on Escobeda vs. Colville/other surveys)
Collins v. Kilgore, 192 S.W.2d 316 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1916) (Collins determined non-conflict between Escobeda and Colville for boundary)
Swilley v. McCain, 374 S.W.2d 871 (Tex. 1964) (stare decisis; boundary determinations; binding effect varies by context)
Howland v. Hough, 570 S.W.2d 876 (Tex. 1978) (presumption of lost grant can be established as a matter of law when deeds are ancient and undisputed)
Magee v. Paul, 221 S.W. 254 (Tex. 1920) (presumed lost deed; adverse title concept)
Houston Oil Co. of Tex. v. Moss, 284 S.W.2d 131 (Tex. 1955) (tenure and possession principles in mineral estates)
State v. Lain, 349 S.W.2d 579 (Tex. 1961) (jurisdictional consent for suit against the State)