Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 19, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

EOG Resources Marketing, LLC v. San Patricio County Appraisal District

Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 13-25-00305-CV
• Nature of Suit: Tax

• Disposition: Reversed & Rendered

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (21.8K)

• PDF

Disposition

Reversed & Rendered

Lead Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00305-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

EOG RESOURCES
MARKETING, LLC, Appellant,

v.

SAN PATRICIO COUNTY
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 343RD DISTRICT COURT
OF SAN PATRICIO COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Peña and West
Memorandum Opinion by Justice West

Appellant EOG Resources Marketing, LLC (EOG) and appellee San Patricio

County Appraisal District (County) filed dueling motions for summary judgment. The trial

court granted summary judgment in favor of the County. By one issue, EOG contends oil
that is sold and pre-committed to foreign destinations before being stored in San Patricio

County holding tanks until a sufficient quantity accumulates to load a tanker ship enjoys

bright line immunity from taxation under the Constitution’s Import-Export Clause. We

reverse and render.

I. BACKGROUND

The County assessed taxes against EOG on crude oil sitting in tanks at the

Enbridge Terminal in Ingleside, Texas, in 2022 and 2023. EOG attached the affidavit of

Jonathan Cave, EOG’s Director for “Marketing-Downstream Crude Oil.” In his affidavit,

Cave attested that EOG does not use the Enbridge Terminal for transport of its crude oil

to domestic destinations. He further attested that the crude oil assessed by the County in

2022 was sold to Italy, South Korea, and Peru; and the crude oil assessed by the County

in 2023 was sold to Italy, the Netherlands, France, and the United Kingdom. Cave further

attested that all the crude oil was loaded onto foreign flagged vessels which are barred

by federal law from transporting oil in the United States domestically. Moreover, Cave

attached several documents to his affidavit including Intertanko Chartering Questionnaire

88 forms and transaction confirmation receipts related to the crude oil assessed. The

documents provide that the vessels were all foreign owned.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“We review grants of summary judgment de novo.” First United Pentecostal

Church of Beaumont v. Parker, 514 S.W.3d 214, 219 (Tex. 2017). In de novo review, we

exercise our own discretion and grant no deference to the trial court’s decision. Vaughn

v. Vaughan, 710 S.W.3d 412, 418 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2025, pet. denied) (citing Quick

v. City of Austin, 7 S.W.3d 109, 116 (Tex. 1998)). While denial of summary judgment is

2
generally not appealable, “we may review such . . . when both parties moved for summary

judgment and the trial court granted one but denied the other.” Tex. Mun. Power Agency

v. Pub. Util. Comm’n of Tex., 253 S.W.3d 184, 192 (Tex. 2007). In such cases, we review

all summary judgment evidence, determine all issues presented, and render judgment as

the trial court should have rendered. Id.

III. IMMUNITY: PRE-SOLD OIL TO FOREIGN DESTINATIONS

We recently held that crude oil—pre-sold to foreign destinations that is merely

waiting in holding tanks until a sufficient quantity accumulates such that a ship can be

loaded—enjoys bright line immunity from taxation under the Import-Export Clause of the

United States Constitution. San Patricio Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. Gunvor USA LLC., No.

13-24-00590-CV, 2026 WL 59714, at *14, __ S.W.3d _, _ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–

Edinburg Jan. 8, 2026, no pet. h.); San Patricio Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. Deveon Gas

Servs., L.P. ex rel. Glencore Ltd., No. 13-25-00027-CV, 2026 WL 59714, at *1, __ S.W.3d

_, _ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jan. 8, 2026, no pet. h.); San Patricio Cnty.

Appraisal Dist. v. Vitol, Inc., No. 13-24-00413-CV, 2026 WL 393951, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb. 12, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). Thus, we sustain EOG’s

sole issue.

IV. STATUS OF EOG’S OIL

By one counter-issue, the County asserts that EOG has presented “no firm

evidence” that any of its oil reached foreign destinations. We disagree. Cave attested that

EOG does not ship oil domestically from the Enbridge Terminal. He attested that all the

relevant crude oil was shipped to specific foreign nations. He further attested and

attached documents providing that all the vessels used to transport the crude oil were

3
foreign owned. See 46 U.S.C. § 55102 (b)(1) (providing no vessel may transport

merchandise between domestic points unless “wholly owned by citizens of the United

States”).

V. CONCLUSION

We reverse the trial court’s judgment and render summary judgment in favor of

EOG.

JON WEST
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
19th day of March, 2026.

4