Spradley v. Finley’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 1985
17 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Sun Oil Co. v. Bennett · Southland Royalty Co. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co. · Sun Oil Co. v. Burns · King v. First National Bank of Wichita Falls · Cantley v. Gulf Production Co.
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Petitioners do not challenge the right of respondents to the royalties paid them according to their respective interests during the 15-year term. But the only right of the respondents to those royalties was by reason of the pooling agreement to treat production from any portion of the unit as the equivalent of production from the 97.3 and 20.4 acre tracts. It must be conceded that if production had been obtained from wells drilled upon these two tracts then the 15-year term would have been extended so long as production continued. It would seem to follows, therefore, that if production from another part of the unit is treated as production from these two tracts so as to entitle respondents to royalty payments during the 15-year term, then equally so it would be regarded as production from the two tracts so as to extend the term. The interests owned by LaGrone and Bourn were undivided interests in the whole of the two tracts. “In Southland Royalty Co. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 151 Tex. 324 , 249 S.W.2d 914 , the Court held that a general form lease executed by the various owners had the effect of unitizing the lands described for development and production purposes and followed the decisions in Parker v. Parker, Tex.Civ.App., 144 S.W.2d 303 (wr. ref.) and French v. George, Tex. Civ.App., 159 S.W.2d 566 (wr. ref.). Here we have the unitization and pooling specifically provided for.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * In other words a landowner joining in a unitized lease may stipulate: that production from one tract included • therein, shall not be treated as production from any other tract for the pur-' pose of determining rights under an-, other instrument affecting the title to. the latter tract or any part thereof or interest therein. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.