Moody v. Wagner’s Empirical Analysis
1933
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently July 1998 · most notably Earp v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp. (1933), Wolfe v. Stanford (1937)
5 federal appellate · 31 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 Earp v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp. · Howard v. Manning · Connette v. Wright · Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Garrett · Ft. Dearborn Trust & Sav. Bank v. Skelly Oil 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ... It is conceded that the owners of undivided portions of oil and gas rights in and under real estate are tenants in common. Each of such coten-ants may enter upon the premises for the purpose of exploring for oil and gas, and may drill and develop the premises. However, one cotenant cannot exercise that right to the exclusion of the other, and each may exercise the same right and privilege with reference to the common property. Upon the discovery of oil and gas upon the premises, the producing cotenant must account to the nonconsenting or non-producing cotenant for his pro rata share of the net profits apportioned according to the fractional interest of such cotenant, the net profits being determined by deducting from the market value of the oil or gas produced, the necessary expense of developing, extracting, and marketing the same. . . .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““1. The owners of undivided interest in the oil and gas rights in and under real estate are tenants in common, and each co-tenant has the right to enter upon the premises for the purpose of exploring for oil and gas without the consent of the other tenant in common. Provided, however, that he cannot exclude his cotenants from exercising the same right with reference to the common property. “2. Each tenant in common may properly lease for oil and gas purposes his interest in the property without the consent of his cotenant, and the lessee upon execution and delivery of the lease becomes a tenant in common with the tenants in common of his lessor. “3. In the absence of a contract to that effect, a tenant in common is not an agent for his cotenants, and a lease executed by him is effective as to his interest, and ineffective as to the interest of his cotenants.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Knox v. Freeman““A tenant in common, producing oil and gas from the common property, is liable to account to his cotenants ■for their proportionate share of the market value of the oil and gas produced, less the reasonable and necessary costs of developing, extracting and marketing the same.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mershon v. Essley
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.