Carlock v. Krug’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 30 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * Appellant concedes that under the majority doctrine oil production belongs solely to the owners of the well and of the land on which the well is located. * * * “While admitting that the majority doctrine, as .heretofore stated, would be fatal to his contention, appellant argues that ‘this is not the law now.’ He contends that it has all been changed — ‘immediately after the decision of Galt v. Metscher, 103 Okl. 271 , 229 P. 522’— by the inclusion in oil [and gas] leases for the first time of the following provision : ‘ * * * if said lessor owns a less interest in the above described lands than the entire and undivided fee simple estate therein, then the royalties and rentals herein provided for shall be paid to the lessor only in the proportion which his interest bears to the whole and undivided fee.’ “Appellant relies heavily upon the Oklahoma case of Gypsy Oil Co. v. Schonwald, 107 Okl. 253 , 231 P. 864 , in which it was held that one purchasing part of the land covered by a lease thereby acquired an interest in the royalty on the whole acreage, prorated in the proportion that his parcel bore to the entire tract. The fatal weakness of the argument is, however, that the provision or covenant involved in the Gypsy Oil Co. case, supra, was not at all the same provision which appears in the instant lease. The determining clause in the Gypsy Oil Co. case, as well as in the case of Schrader v. Gypsy Oil Co., 38 N.M. 124 , 28 P.2d 885 , and Eason v. Rosamond, 173 Okl. 10 ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Raley v. Moore

2. ““When a tract of land npon which an oil and gas lease has been given is subsequently divided into different ownerships, the owners of the separate parcels or mineral interests are only entitled — in the absence of specific provisions or agreements to the contrary — to the royalties accruing from production on the particular tract to which their ownership attaches.” (Syl. j[ 1.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hoffman v. Sohio Petroleum Co.