134 F.4th 868
6th Cir.2025Background
- Lucky Land Management owns Ohio property and invested heavily to develop it as a hunting site.
- EOG Resources holds oil and gas drilling rights under Lucky Land’s property from a 1950s-era mineral severance deed.
- EOG sought to build large horizontal drilling pads on Lucky Land’s surface to access minerals under both Lucky Land and neighboring tracts; Lucky Land objected, fearing ruinous damage to its surface value.
- After failed negotiations, EOG sued and obtained a preliminary injunction from the district court, enabling it to begin cutting trees and constructing well pads.
- The district court found EOG likely to succeed and ordered a $100,000 surface compensation payment; Lucky Land appealed, obtaining a stay (but only after EOG deforested much of the disputed land).
- The key dispute: Whether EOG’s mineral rights gave it the right to use Lucky Land’s surface to drill horizontally to extract resources from neighboring tracts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the mineral deed allow using surface estate to drill under neighboring lands? | EOG argued implied and/or ambiguous deed rights permit such use or that industry efficiency and pooling demand it. | Lucky Land asserted Ohio law defaults against such use absent express language; surface-use is limited to minerals beneath that land. | No: Under Ohio law and general oil-and-gas law, surface-use rights are limited to subjacent minerals unless expressly expanded in the deed. |
| Did EOG show likelihood of irreparable harm if denied a preliminary injunction? | EOG claimed denial would delay profits and operational plans. | Lucky Land emphasized monetary damages are sufficient, no legal irreparable harm. | No: Lost profits from delay are compensable, not irreparable; EOG did not meet the standard. |
| Was the district court’s focus on “due regard” sufficient to expand drilling rights? | EOG argued “due regard” is the relevant equitable test, supporting court’s payment-based compromise. | Lucky Land contended “due regard” does not create an otherwise non-existent legal right, and only actual deed/law can expand surface-use rights. | No: "Due regard" is an equitable balancing test, not an independent source for expanding surface-use rights or granting a new right. |
| Did the balance of equities and public interest favor granting the injunction? | EOG suggested efficiency and industry needs, with money for damage, outweighed Lucky Land’s concerns. | Lucky Land asserted irreversible harm from deforestation outweighed temporary delay to EOG, and real property demands special protection. | No: Injunction enabled irreparable harm to Lucky Land via deforestation, which outweighs EOG’s claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. 339 (2024) (Preliminary injunctions are never awarded as of right and require a clear showing of all four factors.)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (Plaintiff must demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm, not just a possibility, to receive a preliminary injunction.)
- Snyder v. Ohio Dep’t of Nat. Res., 18 N.E.3d 416 (Ohio 2014) (Describes the tension and balancing of rights between surface and mineral estate owners.)
- Chesapeake Expl., LLC v. Buell, 45 N.E.3d 185 (Ohio 2015) (Mineral estate includes only surface rights reasonably necessary to production of minerals beneath that tract.)