456 So. 2d 992 - Steele v. Denning’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 2003
10 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 Frost-Johnson Lumber Co. v. Salling's Heirs · Amerada Petroleum Corporation v. Reese · Smith v. Nelson · Gulf Refining Co. v. Carroll · Steele v. Denning
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“are owners par mi et par tout, of part and of the whole. Neither of two co-owners has the exclusive right to any determinative part of the common property.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“An owner of a mineral servitude is an owner of an incorporeal immovable (La. R.S. 31:18), a real right. La.R.S. 31:16. “A mineral servitude is the right of en joyment of land belonging to another for the purpose of exploring for and producing minerals and reducing them to possession and ownership.” La.R.S. 31:21. And it is a dismemberment of the title insofar as it creates a secondary right in the property separate from the principal right of ownership of the land. Plaintiffs are quick to point out that we do not recognize (as does the common law) a separate estate in minerals. And they are certainly correct on this point. [[Image here]] That does not, however, change the fact that the creation of a mineral servitude effectively fragments the title such that different elements of ownership are held by different owners (i.e., between the landowner and the mineral servitude owner), ... Steele v. Denning, 456 So.2d 992, 998 (La.1984).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“That does not, however, change the fact that the creation of a mineral servitude effectively fragments the title such that different elements of ownership are held by different owners (i.e., between the landowner and the mineral servitude owner), and there is not any “thing held in common” between them. Defendant [ ], a mineral servitude owner, and all of the other defendants herein, own the right to explore for minerals and reduce them to possession and ownership. La. R.S. 31:21. Plaintiffs own only an interest in the land, specifically without the right (in common with defendants) to explore for minerals and reduce them to possession and ownership.”
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.