Narrative Opinion Summary
Dexco is entitled to have a new well drilled, as determined by the trial court, with no manifest error found in this conclusion. Even if Helmer achieved one of the objectives, the necessity for a new well remains. The court of appeal incorrectly reduced the trial court's damage award of $220,503 to account for the drilling costs. Consequently, the court of appeal's judgment is vacated and the trial court's judgment is reinstated. Justices Calogero and Lemmon expressed a desire to grant and docket the case.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Court's Error in Damage Award Adjustmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court erred by reducing the trial court's damage award to account for drilling costs, leading to the reinstatement of the original judgment.
Reasoning: The court of appeal incorrectly reduced the trial court's damage award of $220,503 to account for the drilling costs.
Entitlement to New Well Drillingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court determined that Dexco is entitled to have a new well drilled, a decision that the appellate court found no manifest error in.
Reasoning: Dexco is entitled to have a new well drilled, as determined by the trial court, with no manifest error found in this conclusion.
Reinstatement of Trial Court Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court's judgment was vacated, and the trial court's original judgment was reinstated.
Reasoning: Consequently, the court of appeal's judgment is vacated and the trial court's judgment is reinstated.