2011 Pa. Super. 2 - Hite v. Falcon Partners’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... Lessor does hereby grant, demise, lease and let unto the said Lessee, its successor or assigns the hereinafter described “leased premises,” for the sole and only purpose of drilling and operating for oil and gas, of storing gas in any formations underneath the surface, and withdrawing therefrom gas originally produced from other lands, and of laying such pipe lines and building such tanks, stations and structures thereon, and drilling any water well or wells as may be necessary to produce, store, withdraw and transmit such oil and gas covering 25,000 acres more or less, situate in Elk and Jefferson Counties, Pennsylvania. Said “leased premises” total 25,000 acres more or less in Jefferson and Elk Counties, Pennsylvania, and include all oil and gas lands owned by Lessor in said Counties[.] [[Image here]] This lease shall be for a term of forty (40) years and as long thereafter as oil or gas or either of them is stored in, produced or withdrawn from all or any portion of said leased premises by the Lessee, its successors or assigns, subject to payments and cancellation as hereinafter set forth. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PREMISES[,] the Parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Lessee agrees to deliver to the credit of the Lessor, its successors or assigns free of cost in the pipe line to which it may connect its wells, the equal one-eighth (/éth) part of all oil produced and saved from the leased premises. 2. That 10,000 acres more or less of the leased 25,000 acres are not present”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2015 Pa. Super. 181 - Seneca Resources Corp. v. S & T Bank

2. “Our Supreme Court has recognized that the traditional oil and gas “lease” is far from the simplest of property concepts .... Generally, however, the title conveyed in an oil and gas lease is inchoate, and is initially for the purpose of exploration and development. If development during the agreed upon primary term is unsuccessful, no estate vests in the lessee. If, however, oil or gas is produced, a fee simple determinable is created in the lessee, and the lessee’s right to extract the oil or gas becomes vested. A fee simple determinable is an estate in fee that automatically reverts to the grantor upon the occurrence of a specific event. The interest held by the grantor after such a conveyance is termed a possibility of reverter. Such a fee is a fee simple, because it may last forever in the grantee and his heirs and assigns, the duration depending upon the concurrence of collateral circumstances which qualify and debase _ the purity of the grant. Within the oil and gas industry, oil and gas leases generally contain several key provisions, including the granting clause, which initially conveys to the lessee the right to drill for and produce oil or gas from the property; the habendum clause, which is used to fix the ultimate duration of the lease; the royalty clause; and the terms of surrender. * * * Typically ... the habendum clause in an oil and gas lease provides that a lease will remain in effect for as long as oil or gas is produced “in paying quantities.” Traditionall”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2015 Pa. Super. 181 - Seneca Resources Corp. v. S & T Bank

3. “[t]o find as [the company] urges, that it may pay delay rental indefinitely, thereby denying Plaintiffs the opportunity to reap the financial benefits of actual production, would be contrary to the decisions of our Courts, at odds with the presumed intention of the parties in executing the leases in the first place, and in stark contrast to the clear opinion of the courts of Pennsylvania that the obligation to pay delay rentals is intended to spur the lessee toward development.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 38 F. Supp. 3d 644 - Smith v. Steckman Ridge, LP