Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1998 OK 69 - Harrell v. Samson Resources Co.

Harrell v. Samson Resources Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
2
states following
November 2021
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 2021

1 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

1101998200020102020decided

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. · Koczak v. Dixon · Story v. Hefner · Ludey v. Pure Oil Co. · Moody v. Wagner

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

  1. “In a case of equitable cognizance, a judgment will be sustained on appeal unless it is found to be against the clear weight of the evidence or is contrary to law or established principles of equity.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The parties are cotenants in production from the well, and the statute of limitations does not begin to run until ouster or termination of the relationship. See, Ludey v. Pure Oil Co., 157 Okla. 1 , 11 P.2d 102 (1932). As cotenants, there existed mutual open and current accounts between the parties and an under-produced party could wait until well depletion to demand cash balancing. Accordingly, the statute of limitations would not begin to run until ouster by one cotenant of the other cotenant, which occurred when Samson attempted to sell its interest.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Unless changed by other provisions, all costs and liabilities incurred in operations under this contract shall be borne and paid, and all equipment and material acquired in operations on the Unit Area shall be owned, by the parties as their interests are given in Exhibit "A". All production of oil and gas from the Unit Area, subject to the payment of lessor's royalties, shall also be owned by the parties in the same manner.”
    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.