McCarthy v. Evolution Petroleum Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2014
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Carter v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. · 798 So. 2d 60 - Shelton v. Standard/700 Associates · 557 So. 2d 1376 - Bunge Corp. v. Gatx Corp. · 593 So. 2d 630 - Greene v. Gulf Coast Bank · Emerson v. Shirley
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because of Evolution’s duty under [Mineral] Code Article 122 and its alleged commitment for further development of the plaintiffs’ lease at the time of the disputed royalty sale, the plaintiffs are not precluded from asserting a claim of fraud by silence. This is a novel and untested cause of action by a mineral lessor that has never been specifically addressed and decided in our law. Moreover, Evolution was not completely silent because of the communications it had with plaintiffs, which are alleged to be misleading. Accordingly, peremptory dismissal of this case for no cause of action is .unwarranted, and the trial court’s ruling is reversed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Evolution is alleged to have made a false assertion regarding the value of the l/8th lease royalty, while plaintiffs with “ordinary attention” could not have detected the falsehood. The odd number allegedly selected by Evolution for the total price paid to the three plaintiffs, $41,773, was the exact total of the royalties received by plaintiffs for the past production. This emphasis on the past production accounts for no value attributable to the great production potential recognized in the Denbury deal. This allegedly gave plaintiffs an erroneous view of the value of their royalty rights vitiating their consent to the sale.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The good faith duty of Article 122 is more than just the general good faith duty of performance in contract. The duty of the reasonably prudent operator entails certain demands upon the lessee for the use of its geological and technical understanding .of the leased premises for the continuing exercise of its lease rights “for the mutual advantage and.profit of both parties” to the lease. As with all real right burdens on Louisiana property, this duty of the reasonably prudent operator requires ongoing developmental use of the lease. Otherwise, as expressed in the jurisprudence, “give up the contract.” (Emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.