Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 8 Ill. 2d 414 - Hammer v. Sanders

8 Ill. 2d 414 - Hammer v. Sanders’s Empirical Analysis

1956

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
2
states following
December 1987
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently December 1987 · most notably 118 Ill. 2d 528 - Daleiden v. Wiggins Oil Co. (1987), 23 Ill. App. 2d 446 - Meihsner v. Runyon (1960)

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 22 state decisions

1701956196019701980decided

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 Securities & Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co. · Securities & Exchange Commission v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp. · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Universal Service Ass'n · Levine v. Farley · People v. Craven

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

  1. ““Piecing all this together, we believe the record shows clearly that the development contract aspects of the instrument were uppermost in the minds of the parties. The only sums advanced by the plaintiffs were for drilling costs — not in payment of shares in working interests. The transfer of a working interest, even if it be assumed that it was effective immediately upon execution of the instrument, merely served as a basis for agreeing on the drilling of a test well and for establishing the plaintiff’s share of the oil, if and when produced. In effect, the parties, as co-owners of the working interest, were thereby enabled to form an association for oil development, with the ultimate profits to be distributed as their interests appeared. At best, the transfer of a working interest was incidental to the development contract. *-*•»*** “The statute contemplates the return of money expended in purchasing the ‘securities,’ and it is the plaintiffs’ burden to demonstrate a right to recover. In this regard, a basic distinction must be recognized here; namely, the difference between sums spent to acquire the interest and sums advanced to exploit the property (i. e., test for oil and gas). If a group of people own undivided shares of a working interest, an agreement among them to develop that property is clearly not within the purview of the statute. These 45 transactions are, in substance, of the same type, even though the transfer of the interest and the entering into of the contr”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ ‘We will assign to you an-undivided 1/128th working interest, under oil and gas leases on a block of 200 acres, located in Gibson County, Indiana, for the sum of $242.19. We agree to commence or cause to be commenced, upon the leasehold estate described above, the drilling of a well for oil and/or gas, to diligently prosecute the drilling of same and to test all possible oil formations encountered to a depth of approximately 3000 feet, unless oil or gas in commercial quantities is discovered at a lesser depth, for the sum of $242.19, which is your share of the drilling cost of this well. We will plug the well should it be a dry hole. In the event of a producing well, it is understood and agreed that, in addition to the amount as set out above, you will pay your proportionaté part of the casing, drilling in expense, and for all equipment necessary to complete the well, as well as your proportionate part of the monthly operating expense, upon receipt of invoice. It is also understood that for any additional wells that might be drilled, you will pay your proportionate part of all costs, which costs may include the normal drilling profit of Sanders-Fye Drilling Company.’ ” 8 Ill. 2d 414, 417 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The word ‘securities’ shall mean . . . any oil, gas or mining lease, royalty, or deed, and interest, units or shares in any such lease, royalty, or deed, . . . ‘sale’ . . . shall include every disposition, or attempt to dispose, of a security or interest in a security for value. The term ‘sale’ means and includes contracts or agreements whereby securities are sold, traded or exchanged for money, property or thing of value, or any transfer or agreement to transfer in trust or otherwise.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1953, Chap. 121%, Par. 97. “Every sale and contract of sale made in violation of any of the provisions of this Act shall be void at the election of the purchaser, and the seller of the securities so sold . . . shall be . . . liable, in an action at law or in equity, upon tender to the seller or in court of the securities sold, to the purchaser for the amount paid, the consideration given or the value thereof, together with his reasonable attorney’s fees in any action brought for such recovery.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1951, Chap. 121%, Par. 132.”
    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.