Burke v. GAPCO Energy

On September 27, the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted defendant Sylvan and defendant EQT’s motions in limine to preclude plaintiff’s arguments about contract interpretation and parol evidence. The Court concluded that the meaning of the oil and gas lease at issue has been interpreted as a matter of law in the prior order, and under the parol evidence rule, plaintiff cannot present evidence of preliminary negotiations made before the written lease to establish its meaning.

Written by Anna Leonenko, Research Fellow
Penn State Law, Agricultural Law Center

October 10, 2012

Click here to read the full opinion in Burke v. GAPCO Energy, LLC