Oldland v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 federal appellate · 7 district · 12 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The 1935 Amendment to the 1920 Act expressly authorized the holder of a valid prospecting permit to ‘exchange the same for a lease to the area described in the permit without proof of discovery, at a royalty of not less than 123/2 per centum or value of the production * * i. e. see Amendment to Sections 13, 14 and 17, 49 Stat. 674 — 676. And, the amendment also provided that ‘Nothing contained [therein] shall be construed to affect the validity of oil and gas prospecting permits or leases previously issued under the authority of the said Act of February 25, 19207 Sec. 2(b), 49 Stat. 679 . The exchange lease was granted on the basis of the valid permit, and when in 1940 McLaughlin quitclaimed the lease to his daughter Levison, and Gray, he again acknowledged his obligation to the Oldland Group under the terms of the permit, and Levison and Gray took the exchange lease with full knowledge of this outstanding obligation. “Before the expiration of the five year exchange lease, and in November 1943, Levison and Gray applied for a new lease covering the same area, based upon the preference rights granted to them by the Amendment of July 29, 1942, 56 Stat. 726 . The lease was granted with the active aid and assistance of Phillips on January 1, 1944, and it was subsequently assigned to Phillips, subject to a graduated overriding royalty of from 2% per cent to 4% per cent, which Phillips agreed to pay Levison and Gray in addition to the statutory Government royalty. Phillips took the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kutz Canon Oil & Gas Co. v. Harr

2. ““It is contended, and the trial court finally held, that even though a fiducial relationship was created by the 1926 assignment, it was extinguished by the 1935 Amendment to the Leasing Act providing for exchange leases and a minimum royalty of 12x^ per cent, or that it was certainly extinguished by the 1942 Amendment providing for new leases. It is clear, without doubt, that the 1935 Amendment did not extinguish the permit or abrogate the rights of the. parties hereunder. Instead, it expressly recognized the permit and the rights, of the parties.' * * * “But even though the subsequent legislation operated to extinguish the rights of the appellants as between them and the Government, it did not affect the rights of the parties under the private contract. As we have said, the rights of the parties here do not arise out of the federal act. They have their genesis in and derive their vitality from an agreement between the parties, which unless contrary to declared public policy, are enforceable in accordance with its terms and conditions and applicable law. See Blackner v. McDermott, 10 Cir., 176 F.2d 498 . * * * ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jack v. Hunt

3. ““But, as we have often said, ‘A suit having for its purpose the enforcement of a right which finds its origin in the laws of the United States is not necessarily and for that reason alone one arising under such laws. * * * A right or immunity created by the laws of the United States must be an essential element of the plaintiff’s cause of action, and the right or immunity must be such that it will be supported if one construction or effect is given to the laws of the United States and will be defeated if another construction or effect is given.’ (citing cases) Federal law did not create this asserted cause of action, nor is it an essential element thereof in the sense that the cause of action will be sustained if federal law is given one construction or effect, and defeated if given another. The asserted rights of the parties arise out of a private contract, and they must stand or fall upon its construction or effect.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pudlik v. Public Service Company of Colorado