Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 5 CAL2D 1 - Dabney v. Edwards

Dabney v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis

1935

Citation profile

100
cited by 100 later decisions
6
states following
July 1998
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 81 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently July 1998 · most notably 1 Cal. 4th 155 - Pacific Southwest Realty Co. v. County of Los Angeles (1991), 25 Cal. 2d 501 - Gavina v. Smith (1944)

13 federal appellate · 81 state decisions

3401935194019501960197019801990decided

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 Poe v. Ulrey · Terry v. Humphreys · Graciosa Oil Co. v. County of Santa Barbara · J. S. Potts Drug Co. v. Benedict · Bruner v. Hicks

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

  1. ““Obviously the lease is divided as to duration into two parts, the definite term, commonly called the exploratory period, and the indefinite term, beyond the exploratory period, for which the lease may be extended by production. The 1 thereafter ’ clause prescribes the condition of fact which must exist within or at the end of the exploratory period of the lease upon which the lease may be continued beyond the definite term, as well as the conditions which must exist after the end of the exploratory period, upon which the lease may continue indefinitely. In other words, during the definite fixed term, the lessee must complete its exploratory work (except in very exceptional cases when for some equitable reason the definite term may be extended) and having discovered and produced oil upon the leased premises within the definite fixed term must continue such production during the remainder of the fixed term in order to be entitled to continue the lease thereafter, and may continue as lessee thereafter only so long as production is continued. It is thus apparent that there are in fact two periods of time provided by the habendum clause in such leases; the definite fixed term for exploration and discovery which vests immediately upon the execution of the lease and terminates in the absence of earlier forfeiture at the expiration of the definite fixed term, and secondly, the indefinite period for production which likewise vests immediately upon the execution of the lease and conti”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““It must be apparent, therefore, that even though our courts have recognized that there are substantial differences between an oil lease and an ordinary lease, that such recognition has not, by any decisions of the courts of this state, made an oil lease real property in the generic common law sense of that phrase. Our courts have held uniformly and unequivocally that the interest created by an oil and gas lease is a term for years, and as such it is personalty. (Chandler v. Hart, 161 Cal. 405 [ 119 P. 516 , Ann.Cas. 1913B, 1094]; Barr Lumber Co. v. Perkins, 214 Cal. 531 [ 6 P.2d 948 ].)””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “so long thereafter as oil or gas is produced,”
    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.