Statex Petroleum v. Petroleum, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
308 F.2d 815 · 1962
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 2016
6 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. · Prowant v. Sealy · Frank Oil Co. v. Belleview Gas & Oil Co. · Anthis v. Sullivan Oil & Gas Co. · Townsend v. Creekmore-Rooney Company
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.
““A first form is limited to a change in the habendum by the addition of such expressions as ‘said premises developed and operated’, ‘operations are continued thereon’ or ‘as long after the commencement of operations as said premises are being operated for the production of oil or gas.’ These clauses have been construed as meaning that if a lessee commences a well within the primary term of a lease and carries on the drilling operations diligently and in good faith, although he does not actually complete the well and secure production until after the end of the primary term, the lease remains in force until he completes the well, and if he secured production therefrom, as long as production in paying quantities continues.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Adolph v. Stearns“Under all the circumstances including the terms of the November 29, 1954 lease, the construction placed thereon by the parties and the abandonment of the Barby Well after permanent loss of its production, plaintiffs (assignee of first lessee) are entitled to assert no rights under said lease which expired prior to the execution of the lease dated November 11, 1960, to defendant Petroleum, Inc. (second lessee).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“... the lower court found, undoubtedly on the basis of the letters written by Dawson to the other appellants and to the landowners”
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.