Ratcliff v. Guoinlock’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . This court has held that in leases for the purpose of producing oil or gas, where there was a clause in the lease similar to the one under consideration here, it was necessary that there should be actual production of oil and gas, not merely exploration activities in order to extend the term of the lease. (See Howerton v. Gas Co., 81 Kan. 553 , 106 Pac. 47 ; Alford v. Dennis, 102 Kan. 403 , 170 Pac. 1005 ; Webb v. Croft, 120 Kan. 654 , 244 Pac. 1033 .) “There appears to be no good reason why there should be a different rule where the lease contains the same provision but is for the production of clay.” (1. c. 152.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Holmes

2. ““Where a lease of real estate for the production of clay contained the following clause; “ ‘It is agreed that this lease shall remain in force for a term of one year from this date and as long thereafter as clays or earths are mined and produced from said lands by lessee as hereinafter provided,’ there must be actual production of clay within the year in order to extend the term of the lease. Mere exploratory activity is not sufficient.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Holmes