Hunter Co. v. McHugh’s Empirical Analysis
320 U.S. 222 · 1943
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Republic Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma (1948), 41 Cal. 2d 460 - Wotton v. Bush (1953)
10 federal appellate · 50 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 Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. · Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Commission · Thompson v. Consolidated Gas Utilities Corp. · Bandini Petroleum Co. v. Superior Court · McGoldrick v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"A state has constitutional power to regulate production of oil and gas so as to prevent waste and to secure equitable apportionment among landholders of the migratory gas and oil underlying their land, fairly distributing among them the costs of production and of the apportionment.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"In a supplemental brief filed for the Hunter Company after this case was reargued and resubmitted, complaint is made that, although provision is made in section 9(a) of the statute for the Hunter Company to be reimbursed the proportionate share of the cost of drilling and operating the Hunter well, chargeable to the other landowners or leaseholders in the drilling unit, there is no provision made for collecting or enforcing the reimbursement. The answer to this of course is that the Hunter Company has had and will have possession of all of the proceeds from the production of the well and may retain all of the proceeds until the drilling of the well and putting it on production is entirely paid for."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"A. When two or more separately owned tracts of land are embraced within a drilling unit which has been established by the commissioner as provided in R.S. 30:9B, the owners may validly agree to pool their interest and to develop their lands as a drilling unit. "(1) Where the owners have not agreed to pool their interests, the commissioner shall require them to do so and to develop their lands as a drilling unit, if he finds it to be necessary to prevent waste or to avoid drilling unnecessary wells. "(c) In the event pooling is required, the cost of development and operation of the pooled unit chargeable by the operator to the other interested owners shall be limited to the actual reasonable expenditures required for that purpose, including a charge for supervision. In the event of a dispute relative to these costs, the commissioner shall determine the proper costs, after notice to all interested persons and a hearing."”
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.