Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 233 SW2D 202 - Senter v. Shanafelt

Senter v. Shanafelt’s Empirical Analysis

1950

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
April 2003
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 2003

9 state decisions

80195019601970198019902000decided

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 Waggoner Estate v. Sigler Oil Co. · Dallas Storage & Warehouse Co. v. Taylor · Independent Life Insurance Co. of America v. Work · Cowden v. Broderick & Calvert, Inc. · Rhoads Drilling Co. v. Allred

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. ““Since trial was to the court we only note contents of this objection because it amplifies the subject matter for our holding in this case, such being that the lease set out in appellees’ pleadings does not contain an express covenant to develop the land, so if ap-pellees had a cause of action against appellant for non-production, it is supplanted by an implied covenant to explore and develop the mineral resources, which under certain circumstances might entitle a lessor to forfeit a lease or to recover damages. Appellant’s obligation under an implied covenant to develop is measured generally by the standard of reasonable diligence. Rhoads Drilling Co. v. Allred, 123 Tex. 229 , 70 S.W.2d 576 . As stated in 31-A Tex.Jur., p. 229, sec. 136: “ ‘The final test in every instance is whether an ordinary prudent person, having his covenant to develop and the interests of both lessor and lessee in mind, would, under the same or similar circumstances, cause drilling to be done. * * * and that it is for the court or jury trying the case to determine whether, under all of the circumstances, including the cost of drilling and the probable profit therefrom, an ordinarily prudent person would have prosecuted development. The lessee is not required to continue in performance of the implied obligations unless continuance will be profitable, not only to his lessor, but also to him. * * * “ ‘Since as just stated, the standard of compliance with the requirements of the implied covenant to develo”
    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.