Hanson v. Ware’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 26 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The appellees' estate was doubtless speculative in value, but the uncertainty stemmed from a fundamentally different reason from that which makes an ordinary contingent remainder an estate of doubtful worth.... The appellees' title being complete, the doubt is occasioned not by the possibility that some one else may acquire the property but by the possibility that there may in fact be no oil and gas within the land. In short, the typical contingent remainderman has an uncertain interest in the fee simple, while these appellees have a fee simple interest in the uncertain. "A contingent future interest is one which may eventually become vested, but here the difficulty lies in the attempt to find a satisfactory date upon which the appellees' estate, if regarded as future and contingent, might be said to vest. The appellant suggests that the estate would vest upon the execution of an oil and gas lease, but this position is not theoretically sound. Suppose, for example, that a lease were executed and expired by its terms without production; would the estate then again become contingent, awaiting a second vesting upon the making of another lease? A vested estate is by definition vested for all time; the concept itself precludes the possibility of a further contingency. "It might also be argued that the estate would vest upon the actual production of oil and gas—the view to which the Kansas court was driven by reason of the royalty interest being considered as personal property. Bu”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 508 So. 2d 401 - Terry v. Conway Land, Inc. · Dauphin Island Property Owners Ass'n v. CALLON INST. ROYALTY INVESTORS I

2. “[S]ome jurisdictions hold that a conveyance of royalty transfers title to the minerals in place; but this is not the law in Arkansas. We have recently observed that one who retained only a royalty interest 'reserved no minerals or mineral rights.' ”) (quoting Davis v. Collins, 219 Ark. 948 , 245 S.W.2d 571, 572 (1952)). As one court has explained:”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 648 F. Supp. 2d 840 - Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. NL Industries