Range Resources Corp. v. Bradshaw’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
9 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 608 (§ 408 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Quick v. City of Austin · Luckel v. White · Cherokee Water Co. v. Forderhause · Altman v. Blake · Plainsman Trading Co. v. Crews
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Bradshaw is the holder of a non-participating royalty interest (NPRI)[ 1 ] in approximately 1,800 acres in Hood County that she inherited from her parents, J.A. and Lota Fay Driskill. The Driskills reserved the royalty interest in two deeds that they executed in . 1960 (the “1960 Deeds”). By 2006, ... Steadfast owned the surface and mineral estates in approximately 1,994 acres in Hood County, of which the Driskills’ reserved royalty interests covered 1,800 acres. Steadfast conveyed the surface estate to ... Range Resources Corporation but reserved to itself all of the oil, gas, and other hydrocarbons in the 1,994 acres. At the same time, Steadfast entered into an oil and gas lease covering the 1,994 acres with ... Range Production I, L.P.; the lease provided for a 1/8 royalty. Steadfast assigned portions of its royalty interest to ... R.J. and Kathy Sikes, R. Crist Vial, [Greg and Pam] Louvier[], and Dacota Investment Holdings, LLP.[ 2 ] In January 2007, Bradshaw filed suit, alleging that Steadfast breached its fiduciary duty to her by entering into the one-eighth royalty lease with Range Production I, L.P., when Steadfast owed her a duty to secure a one-fourth royalty in the lease. Bradshaw argued that she was entitled to a one-eighth royalty (1/2 of 1/4 lease royalty), rather than a one-sixteenth royalty (1/2 of 1/8 lease royalty) because, at the time Steadfast executed the lease to Range, the “going royalty rate in Hood County, Texas, was one-fourth.” The parties filed com”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[Grantors] have GRANTED, SOLD, CONVEYED, ASSIGNED AND DELIVERED, and by these presents do GRANT, SELL, ASSIGN, CONVEY AND DELIVER unto the said Grantees, Share and share alike, an undivided (1/2) interest in and to all of the oil royalty, gas royalty, royalty in casing-head gas and gasoline, and royalty in other minerals in and under, and that may be produced and mined from the following described land situated in the County of Zapata and State of Texas, to wit: [[Image here]] [description of land] [[Image here]] Together with the right of ingress and egress at all times for the purpose of mining, drilling and exploring said lands for oil, gas and other minerals and removing the same therefrom. This grant shall run, and the rights, titles and privileges hereby granted shall extend to Grantees herein, and to Grantees heirs, administrators, executors and assigns, Forever.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hausser v. Cuellar“not less than one-sixteenth (1/16) portion (being equal to one-half (1/2) of the customary one-eighth (1/8) Royalty) of the entire gross production”
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.