Devon Energy Production Company, L.P. v. McClure Oil Company, Inc. and Fina 945 L.C.

Opinion filed August 21, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-23-00083-CV __________

DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P., Appellant V. MCCLURE OIL COMPANY, INC. AND FINA 945 L.C., Appellees AND

DRIVER PRODUCTION, L.P. AND GRAHAM SONS MINERALS, LLC, Appellants V. DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P., ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 118th District Court Glasscock County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1895

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION

We issued our opinion in this appeal on June 12, 2025. Appellant, Graham Sons Minerals, LLC, and Appellees, Coly Birds, Nancy Seaberry Smith, Deanna McGrew Lowe, Mary McGrew, and Barbara Knoll (the Birds Parties), have since reached a settlement agreement. Those parties have now filed a “Joint Agreed Motion to Dismiss” the part of this appeal that pertains to them because they have “settled the claims and controversies between them that are subject to this appeal.” In their motion, the parties request that we dismiss Graham Sons’ appeal only as it relates to the Birds Parties pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). However, the parties do not request that we withdraw our June 12 opinion. As noted by Graham Sons, we previously dismissed its appeal as to SH Permian Minerals, LLC and Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc., and its appeal “remains pending” against the remaining appellees to the extent that motions for rehearing are pending, with responses to such motions due in this court. In this regard, SH Permian has filed a motion for rehearing, which the Birds Parties adopted. We grant the parties’ joint motion to dismiss and dismiss the part of Graham Sons’ appeal as it relates to the Birds Parties. To the extent that the Birds Parties’ motion for rehearing relates to the claims and controversies that exist between the Birds Parties and Graham Sons, we dismiss the Birds Parties’ motion as moot. Because our original opinion addresses issues of public importance, and because Graham Sons and the Birds Parties have not requested in their joint motion to dismiss that we withdraw our previous opinion, we do not. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(c) (In dismissing an appeal pursuant to Rule 42.1, an appellate court must determine whether to withdraw any opinion it has already issued.); Houston Cable TV, Inc. v. Inwood West Civic Ass’n, 860 S.W.2d 72, 73 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam); Service Fin. v. Adriatic Ins. Co., 51 S.W.3d 450 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001,

no pet.) (mem. op.). Therefore, we vacate our judgment dated June 12, 2025, and we substitute in its place a judgment that recites our disposition of this appeal in accordance with our June 12 opinion, and the dismissal of Graham Sons’ appeal as it relates only to the Birds Parties. As before, all costs are taxed against the parties incurring same.

W. STACY TROTTER JUSTICE August 21, 2025 Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Wright, S.C.J. 1

Williams, J., not participating.

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.