Blackner v. McDermott’s Empirical Analysis
176 F.2d 498 · 1949
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1986 · most notably Wallis v. Pan American Petroleum Corp. (1966), Colby v. Klune (1949)
37 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Ruhlin v. New York Life Insurance · Hoge v. George · British America Assur. Co. v. Bowen · Bowles v. Beatrice Creamery 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The further contention is that the operating agreement between McDermott and Blackner related only to the original lease and that it had no application whatever to the hew lease granted to Blackner. It is argued that the' words ‘extension’ and ‘renewal’ used in the operating agreement did not include the new lease subsequently issued to Blackner. But the contention leaves out of consideration the fact that the operating agreement provided in effect that the respective rights of the parties under it should extend throughout the term of the application, the lease or leases, and any extension or renewal of the lease or leases. It may be that as between the United States and Blackner the second lease was a new one rather than an extension or renewal of the former lease. But that is not the test here. The test to be applied here is whether as between McDermott and Blackner the second lease was an extension or renewal of the first, within the intent and meaning of the original operating agreement. And in resolving that question, the language contained in the operating agreement, the relátionship existing between the parties, and the background against which the agreement was drafted ánd entered into must be taken into consideration. Viewed in that manner, it is crystal clear that it was the mutual intention of the parties in entering into such agreement that their rights should continue throughout any lease which should issue as the outgrowth of their joint efforts then being exer”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * jurisdiction of the court resting upon diversity of citizenship, and the action not being one under federal law, the relationship of the parties each toward the other in respect of the leasehold estate must be determined by the law of Wyoming. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 , [58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188], * * * Ruhlin v. New York Life Insurance Co., 304 U.S. 202 [58 S.Ct. 860, 82 L.Ed. 1290]. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McKenna v. Wallis
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.