Vickers v. Peaker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In Keylon v. Arnold, 213 Ark. 130 , 209 S.W. 459 , 461 we discussed equitable estoppel by silence and quoted from 19 Am.Jur. 661: “ ‘An estoppel may arise under certain circumstances from silence or inaction as well as from words or actions. Estoppel by silence or inaction is often referred to as estoppel by “standing by”, and that phrase in this connection has almost lost its primary significance of actual presence or participation in the transaction and generally covers any silence where there are a knowledge and a duty to make a disclosure. The principle underlying such estoppels is embodied in the maxim “one who is silent when he ought to speak will not be heard to speak when he ought to be silent.’ ” “In Johnson v. Spencer, 222 Ark. 710 , 262 S.W.2d 290 , we also discussed equitable estoppel by silence. The cited cases conclusively show that all the equities in the case at bar are against the appellants.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 283 F. Supp. 353 - Brixey v. Union Oil Company of California

2. “The general rule seems to be that actual drilling in unnecessary, but that the location of wells, hauling lumber on the premises, erection of derricks, providing a water supply, moving machinery on the premises and similar acts preliminary to the beginning of the actual work of drilling, when performed with the bona fide intention to proceed thereafter with diligence toward the completion of the well, constitute a commencement or beginning of a well or drilling operations within the meaning of this clause of the lease. If the lessee has performed such preliminary acts within the time limited, and has thereafter actually proceeded with the drilling to completion of a well, the intent with which he did the preliminary acts are unquestionable, and the court may rule as a matter of law that the well was commenced within the time specified by the lease.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 733 F. Supp. 2d 1100 - Anderson v. Hess Corp.

3. ““Oil and gas assignment requiring, under penalty of forfeiture, that the assignee commence the drilling of a well on or before September 15, 1955, held not forfeited, under the circumstances, by the mere failure of the drill bit to pierce the earth before that date. * * * “Assignor of oil and gas lease who stood by and permitted the assignee to drill, held estopped by his silence from claiming a forfeiture of the assignment even though the assignee failed to commence and complete a well to the required depth within the time limits of the assignment.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 283 F. Supp. 353 - Brixey v. Union Oil Company of California