Moon v. Marker’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently January 1987
14 state decisions
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 Jameson v. Chanslor-Canfield Midway Oil Co. · 82 Cal. App. 594 - Hall v. Augur · 124 Cal. App. 444 - Jones v. Pier · Hauxhurst v. Lobree
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . The provision of the lease with respect to the production of oil or gas in paying quantities, was a condition precedent to the extension of the lease beyond the ten-year term thereof. The establishing of that condition as a fact became the only possible theory on which the appellants could claim any right of possession. (Parks v. Sinai Oil & Gas Co., 83 Okl. 295 [ 201 P. 517 ]; Roach v. Junction Oil & Gas Co., 72 Okl. 213 [ 179 P. 934 ]; 1 Thornton Oil & Gas, p. 153, sec. 91.) The evidence affirmatively shows that no gas or oil was produced in paying quantities. The appellants, therefore, became mere tenants of the land at sufferance after the termination of the lease on January 31, 1936. As such tenants at sufferance they were not entitled to notice to surrender possession of the land as a necessity prerequisite to the maintenance of this suit for possession thereof. (Hauxhurst v. Lobree, 38 Cal. 563 ; Hull v. Laugharn, 3 Cal.App.2d 310 [ 39 P.2d 478 ]; 15 Cal.Jur. 643, secs. 52, 53.) But notices to surrender possession of the land were, nevertheless, served on the appellants.””
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.