Murphy v. Amoco Production Co.’s Empirical Analysis
729 F.2d 552 · 1984
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 2015
2 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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 Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co · Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon · United States v. Carolene Products Co. · Vance v. Bradley · Chicago Co v. City of Chicago
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“¶ 27 Lang argues first that SODDCA requires Burlington to pay a per barrel fee to dispose of wastewater. into the pore space. SODDCA requires Burlington to pay Lang for “loss of agricultural production and income, lost land value, and lost value of improvements” caused by Burlington’s oil and gas operations. Section 8210-504(1)(a), MCA. The District Court determined that Lang had failed to provide evidence that Burlington’s use of the pore space affected Lang’s interest in the land value,. agricultural production, or valué to improvements, as set forth under SODDCA. ¶ 28 Lang conceded that use of the pore space in the Dakota and Swift Formations did not affect its agricultural production and income. Lang provided no evidence that injecting wastewater into the pore space lessened the value of the land. Lang admitted that it had not lost value in improvements to the land. Finally, Lang offered no evidence that the pore space underlying its land had been degraded, dámaged, devalued, or otherwise consumed by Burlington’s use of the .pore space. The District Court correctly concluded that Lang had failed to offer evidence of separate compensa-ble damages under the elements specifically enumerated in SODDCA. ¶ 29 Burlington hired .George Luther to appraise damages to Lang’s property. Luther has over 26 years of appraisal experience and has appraised over 1,000 properties. Luther had never valued, or heard of any other appraiser valuing, pore space. Luther testified that no demonstr”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The mineral developer shall pay the surface owner a sum of money equal to the amount of damages sustained by the surface owner and the surface owner’s tenant, if any, for loss of agricultural production and income, lost land' value, lost use of and access tó the surface owner’s land, and lost value of improvements caused by drilling operations. The amount of damages may be determined by any formula mutually agreeable between the surface owner and the mineral developer. When determining damages, consideration must be given ‘to the period of time during which the loss occurs and the surface owner may elect to be paid damages in annual installments over a period of time; except that the surface owner must be compensated for harm caused by exploration only by a single sum payment. The payments contemplated by this section only cover land directly affected by drilling operations. Payments under this section are intended to compensate the surface owner for damage and disruption.”
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.