Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 180 Ark. 678 - Claybrooke v. Barnes

Claybrooke v. Barnes’s Empirical Analysis

1929

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
8
states following
February 2024
most recently cited

56 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Missouri Pac. Rd., Thompson, Trustee v. Strohacker (1941), Piney Oil & Gas Co. v. Scott (1934)

56 state decisions

16019291930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Scott v. Laws · Bodcaw Lumber Co. v. Goode · Hoskins v. Northern Lee Oil & Gas Co. · Maney v. Dennison · Grayson-McLeod Lumber Co. v. Duke

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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'Where ownership of the surface and of the mineral rights has been severed, the only way the Statute of Limitations can be asserted against the owner of the mineral rights or estate is for the owner of the surface estate or some other person to take actual possession of the minerals by opening and operating mines for the statutory period.' . . . In the instant case defendant Deruy made no allegation or claim that he had at any time made any attempt to explore for oil, gas, or other minerals, or that he had done anything whatever toward taking or even authorizing the taking of minerals from the land.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““. . . Evidence for appellee tended to show that some mining had been done on the land for each year since 1911, but nearly all of the mining had been done on a single 40-acre tract of land. All of the mining was surface mining, and no mines were opened up and mining machinery installed on the land. There was no occupancy of any of the land continuously for a period of seven years. The most that was shown was that, every three or four months, some of the appellees would work surface mines on the land. They all did so under leases from W. E. Barnes in his lifetime and from Mrs. Laura Barnes after his death. It is not possible, however, to take out any definite part of the land which was so mined, and the evidence does not show any continuous operation of mines for the period of seven years. At best it was only a fitful and desultory occupancy for mining purposes, and was not continued for the necessary length of time to give title by adverse possession for the statutory period of seven years.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Where there has been a severance of the legal interest in the minerals from the ownership of the land, adverse possession of the surface is not adverse possession of the mineral estate, even though title to the minerals be asserted all the time.””
    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.