Whitaker v. Texaco Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
283 F.2d 169 · 1960
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently March 1984 · most notably Skelly Oil Company v. Archer (1962), Northern Natural Gas Company v. Grounds (1968)
20 federal appellate · 1 district · 11 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 Hawks v. Hamill · Clifton v. Koontz · Sauder v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp. · Gypsy Oil Co. v. Marsh · Pelham Petroleum Co. v. North
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In this quiet title action appellants-plaintiffs, herein referred to jointly as the Whitakers, sued to obtain a declaration that an oil and gas lease given by them had terminated because of non-development within the primary term of the lease. The trial court held that the term had been extended by a well drilled off the leased land but within a spacing unit which had been established by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission and which included a part of the leased premises. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““We see no distinction between this case and Panhandle which would require a different result from that reached in Panhandle. The question is one of lease continuation, not of compulsory unitization. The fact that upon the entry of a spacing order royalty interests are pooled by operation of law whereas working interests are pooled only upon voluntary agreement or upon a separate Commission order forcing unitization is unimportant.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * the spacing order did not extend the primary term but ‘set the stage for the extension of the term by an activity which met the requirements of the “thereafter” clause and which occurred somewhere within the spacing unit.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.