Prowant v. Sealy’s Empirical Analysis
1919
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently November 2001 · most notably Dodson v. St. Paul Insurance Co. (1991), Ray Industries, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance (1992)
14 federal appellate · 62 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 Mathews v. Modern Woodmen of America · Schock v. Fish · Savage v. Smith · Pittsburg Vitrified Paving & Building Brick Co. v. Bailey · Voris v. Robbins
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The whole of a contract is to be taken together so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the others””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“It necessarily follows that we must give the words the only other interpretation and construction practicable and of which they are reasonably susceptible, namely, that such words were used in the sense of `being developed or being operated'; or, in other words, they were intended to mean that, if drilling operations were commenced on the premises within the three years for the purpose of discovering oil or gas and were still being prosecuted in good faith at the expiration of the three-year period, the term was thereby enlarged or extended during the continuance of such drilling operations, or, in the case of the discovery of oil or gas, as long as the same was run. This construction, it seems to us, is the only one that will give any effect to the language used. It is fair and reasonable, and is consistent with the whole agreement, particularly with that related part thereof wherein provision is made for the commencement of a well within one year or the payment of rentals for delay in the commencement thereof.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““This deed, made this 30th day of May, 1906, by and between July Sancho and Bettie Sancho, parties of the first part, and J. N. MeNabb, of Wewoka, I. T., party of the second part, witnesseth: That for and in consideration of the sum of one dollar, to them in hand paid,' the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged and the further consideration hereinafter stated, the parties of the first part have bargained and sold, and do hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey, to the party of the second part, his heirs and assigns, all the oil and gas, and all other mineral of commercial value, now or hereafter contained in or lying under and beneath the surface of the. following described land, lying and being within the Seminole Nation, Indian Territory, to wit: The west half (1/2) of the northwest quarter (1/4), section 34, township 9 north, range 7 east, and containing 80 acres of land, more or less, for him, his heirs and assigns to have and to hold forever.””
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.