Sauder v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

57 federal appellate · 6 district · 93 state decisions

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 184 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`The justification for the respondent's position is that the geologic data and the experience upon surrounding lands are both unfavorable to the discovery of oil or gas upon the east half of section 16 (the 320 acre tract). The respondent's officers state that they desire to hold this tract because it may contain oil; but they assert that they have no present intention of drilling at any time in the near or remote future. This attitude does not comport with the obligation to prosecute development with due regard to the interests of the lessor. The production of oil on a small portion of the leased tract cannot justify the lessee's holding the balance indefinitely and depriving the lessor, not only of the expected royalty from production pursuant to the lease, but of the privilege of making some other arrangement for availing himself of the mineral content of the land.'"”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wier v. Grubb · Graefe & Graefe, Inc. v. Beaver Mesa Exploration Co.

2. ““The implication necessarily arising from these [lease] provisions—the intention which they obviously reflect—is that if, at the end of the five-year period prescribed for original exploration and development, oil and gas, one or both, had been found to exist in the demised premises in paying quantities, the work of exploration, development, and production should proceed with reasonable diligence for the common benefit of the parties, or the premises be surrendered to the lessor. That this was of the very essence of the contract is shown by the extensive character of the grant, which was without limit as to time and included all the oil and gas in or obtainable through, the demised premises; by the provisions for the payment of substantial royalties in kind and in money on the oil produced and saved and the gas used off the premises, which, as contrasted with the consideration paid when the lease was executed, shows that the promise of these royalties was the controlling inducement to the grant; and by the provisions contem plating the drilling and operation of wells; the production and transportation of oil and gas, and the prosecution of that business subject to the restrictions prescribed. “Considering the migratory nature of oil and gas, and the danger of their being drawn off through wells on other lands if the field should become fiilly developed, all of which • must have been in the minds of the parties, it is manifest that the terms of the lease contemplated action an”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Olson v. Schwartz · 150 F. Supp. 9 - Clayton v. Atlantic Refining Company

3. ““ ‘The object of the operations being to obtain a benefit or profit for both lessor and lessee, it seems obvious, in the absence of some stipulation to that effect, that neither is made the arbiter of the extent to which or the diligence with which the operations shall proceed, and that both are bound by the standard of what is reasonable.’ ” (Emphasis'added.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fischer v. Magnolia Petroleum Co. · 2 Ohio App. 2d 227 - Lake v. Ohio Fuel Gas Co.