Hunter v. Hussey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 state decisions

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

1. “"At this point it may be well to observe that the Commissioner specifically disclaimed authority to institute a compulsory water injection secondary recovery program. * * * "The Commissioner takes the position that the orders in question are merely permissive in character, effective only with respect to the operators who signed the Unitization and Unit Operating Agreements, and do not mandatorily require any unitized program of secondary recovery by the water injection method as to nonsigning parties. * * * * * * * * * "Order 96-G simply approved in principle the water injection methods set forth in the Unit Operating Agreement. As amended, the order on its face disclaimed any effect on the previously established method of determining allowables for production from each individual 40-acre drilling unit, and any purpose of authorizing the establishment of a unitized field-wide or poolwide allowable. The order further provided that no person not a party to the Unit Operating or Unitization Agreements would become subject to such agreements providing for a field-wide water injection secondary recovery program; nor would any specific injection of water in any well be permitted until after full public notice and further hearing."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 116 So. 2d 532 - Alexander v. Holt

2. ““However, simply stated, plaintiffs are adversely affected by an order which failed to include a finding of the jurisdictional fact upon which its issuance is conditioned by the legislature, and the issuance of which order plaintiffs opposed in the preceding hearing on the ground that the Commissioner had no power to issue same. For the order is not valid; and in this instance does not negative the ‘net drainage’ and loss of their ‘just and equitable share’ of production which plaintiffs claim its issuance will cause them, and which jurisdictional facts were requisites to the validity of the order.” Hunter v. Hussey (La.App. 1956), 90 So.2d 429, 441 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Continental Oil Co. v. Oil Conservation Commission