W. B. Mattison and Harry Hampton v. W. L. Trotti’s Empirical Analysis
262 F.2d 339 · 1959
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 2019
7 federal appellate · 4 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 Earp v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp. · Cosden Oil Co. v. Scarborough · Gas Ridge, Inc. v. Suburban Agricultural Properties, Inc. · Haby v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. · St. Louis Royalty Co. v. Continental Oil Co.
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No drilling was commenced during the first year but the required delay rental was paid on or before the anniversary date. During the second year of the primary term, drilling operations were commenced and a gas well was drilled not by lessee but by the Houston Oil Co., which was the owner of a lease covering other undivided interests in the tract. This well was not induced or procured by appellants, nor was it drilled under any agreement or understanding between Houston and appellants . . . Appellants did not pay, agree to pay, or in any way contribute to the cost of the well. After the well was brought in, it was not produced but was shut in. No shut-in payments were made to appellee, nor did ap pellants pay the rental called for in the lease before the expiration of the second year. In support of the judgment, appellee, pointing out that the lessees have not, as required by the lease, drilled on or produced oil from the land, nor have they paid the rentals required by the lease, but without furnishing or offering to furnish the consideration on which alone they obtained the lease, are seeking to claim the benefit of the Houston Oil well as a performance on their part of the consideration, urges upon us that they cannot in law do this, and the judgment must be affirmed. We find ourselves in complete agreement with appellee’s primary contention. Appellants’ reliance upon the claim that, because Sec. II of the lease, providing that the lease would remain in effect during the p”
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.