Atlantic Refining Company v. Beach’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Elm Ridge Exploration Co. v. Engle (2013), City of Raton v. Vermejo Conservancy District (1984)
4 federal appellate · 22 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 Duhig v. Peavy-Moore Lumber Co. · Watkins v. Slaughter · Jones v. International Union of Operating Engineers · Jernigan v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company · Klein v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is equally apparent that the [%] reservation left the grantors [Price] with enough minerals and royalty to satisfy the previous royalty grant without affecting the conveyance to LeMond of a full 16/½ of the minerals unburdened by the Kitchen royalty interest. The grantors having warranted a full ⅝ of the minerals and having the right to do so will be held to that undertaking. “If the deed should be interpreted to reserve to the grantors a full ⅞ of the minerals unburdened by ½ of the royalty theretofore conveyed to Kitchen, the warranty would be breached by the grantor at the very moment of its execution because the deed warrants the title to the surface estate and to 1⅝2 of the minerals, free and clear of all encumbrances; but, in this instance, the grant- or, by reserving a % interest in the minerals, reserved to himself mineral rights out of which the royalties already conveyed were to be satisfied.... “Reading all of the provisions of the Price-LeMond deed together makes it clear that there was conveyed to Le-Mond 15/32 of the minerals unburdened by the Kitchen royalty interest. Price reserved from the LeMond conveyance 17/fe of the oil and gas mineral fee, subject to the entire burden of the Kitchen royalty interest. The covenant of warranty does not affect or impair that title so reserved. “Our construction of these deeds merely relieves LeMond and his grantees of the burden of any part of the royalty interest held by Kitchen and his grantees.” Atlantic Refining Com”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Prior to their conveyance to Selman, Bristow[s] ... owned 100% of the minerals in place. They could not, however, because of the outstanding royalty interest, convey to Selman[s] the full fee simple title to the full 3Aths of the minerals and yet at the same time reserve ¼⅛ of the minerals for themselves. Obviously, to give effect to both the grant and the reservation would be impossible. In such a situation, the rule is that if both grant and reservation cannot be given effect, the grant prevails and the reservation fails. * * ⅜ * ⅜ ⅝ “[Tjheir reservation left them with more than enough minerals and royalty to satisfy the previous royalty reservation without effecting their conveyance to Selman of a full 3/4ths of the minerals. Since the grantors undertook to convey a full 3Aths of the minerals and had the power to do so, they will be held to this undertaking. The deed was therefore effective to convey to Selman the surface and an unencumbered, unrestricted 3Aths of the minerals.... “Although Bristow[s] ... had knowledge of the Weeden royalty reservation, nevertheless they chose to warrant the title to Selman, and thereby assumed the risk of failure of title.... “While the covenants of general warranty cannot be construed as enlarging the title conveyed or impairing the grantors’ title to Vith of the minerals reserved to them, the warranty operates as an estoppel denying to the grantors the right to set up their ⅛⅛⅛ undivided interest in the mineral estate against the grant”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When the Wilson parents conveyed the mineral acres to Leach, they retained ownership of enough mineral interests in the 160-acre tract of land to satisfy the prior 6.5% royalty assignment without burdening the interest conveyed to Leach. Because the Wilson parents owned enough mineral interests in the 160-acre tract of land to fully satisfy their conveyances to Leach, we conclude that the interests of Leach’s successors in interest, Acoma and the Bassett Trust, are not burdened by the 6.5% royalty.... We therefore conclude that the trial court erred in determining that the 6.5% royalty should be proportionately shared by Acoma and Bassett.”
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.