Deruy v. Noah’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Sautbine v. Keller (1966), Jenkins v. Frederick (1952)
25 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 Barker v. Campbell-Ratcliff Land Co. · Claybrooke v. Barnes · McKee v. Interstate Oil & Gas Co. · Turk v. Page · Stoffler v. Edgewater Coal 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'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.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““The general rule is: ‘The decisions are unanimous' in holding that, where the title to the mineral right has been severed from the title to the surface, possession of the surface by its owner is riot adverse to the owner of the • mineral - below it. The mineral- owner does not lose his possession by any length of nonuser, and the surface owner cannot acquire title'to the minerals by adverse possession based on his extlusive and continued occupancy of the surface alone. It is said that inasmuch as the severance of the title ■ of the mineral estate from the surface estate creates two 'estates which are as distinct as if they constituted two different parcels of land; it naturally follows 'that the title to one cannot be acquired by adverse possession of .the other. ■ Nor; is the .rule changed by the fact that the.possession of the surface is under a deed that describes the lands by ■ metés and bounds and makes no reference' to the : mineral rights reserved by an earlier deed.’ 1 Am.Jur., pp. 858, 859.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““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.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Churchill v. Muegge
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.