Murphy v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. ““This case was followed in Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61 [ 31 S. Ct. 337 , 55 L. Ed. 369 , Ann. Cas. 1912C, 160], involving a New York statute; in Oklahoma v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 221 U. S. 229 [ 31 S. Ct. 564 , 55 L. Ed. 716 , 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1193 ], involving an Oklahoma statute, and in Walls v. Midland Carbon Co., 254 U. S. 300 [ 41 S. Ct. 118 , 65 L. Ed. 276 ], involving a Wyoming statute. The court, in the Lindsley Case based its opinion on the rule laid down in the Ohio Oil Co. Case, and added, ‘But were the question an open one we should still solve it in the same way.’ From these eases the following rules may be deduced: The right to reduce to possession gas and oil underneath one’s land is a property right protected by the Fourteenth amendment. Oil and gas do not belong to the state but con stitute tiie common property of all owners of the soil that lies above the oil and gas deposit. This common ownership' is subject to the right of individual ownership, when the oil or gas is reduced to possession by any one of the common owners. Such common ownership is the private property of the owners of the soil and as such may be protected by statute. “All the property rights above enumerated had been acquired and held by petitioner for more than two years prior to the date of each conveyance. Under the facts the Board is of the opinion that the oil and gas conveyed by petitioner to his grantee were ‘capital assets/ as defined in section 206. To ho”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. King v. Alexander