Crews Oil Co. v. The Superior Oil Co., 319 F.2d 532 (10th Cir. 1963). · Go Syfert
Crews Oil Co. v. The Superior Oil Co., 319 F.2d 532 (10th Cir. 1963). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
57 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Srivastava v. Commissioner (ca5, 2000-07-21) · Strongest negative: Eldon R. Kenseth and Susan M. Kenseth v. Commissioner (tax, 2000-05-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1963 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1963 1994 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Eldon R. Kenseth and Susan M. Kenseth v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 2000 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see O'Brien v. Commissioner, 38 T.C. 707 (1962) (dictum that State law makes no difference), affd. per curiam 319 F.2d 532 (3d Cir. 1963).37 Wisconsin law governed the attorney-client relationship between Fox & Fox and Mr. Kenseth.
discussed Cited "but see" VASQUEZ (2×)
unknown court · Her · signal: but see · confidence high
But see O'Brien v. Commissioner, 38 T.C. 707 *436 (1962) (dictum that State law makes no difference), affd. per curiam 319 F.2d 532 (3d Cir. 1963) . 37 Wisconsin law governed the attorney-client relationship between Fox & Fox and Mr. Kenseth.
discussed Cited "see" Srivastava v. Commissioner
5th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Brien v. Commissioner, 38 T.C. 707, 712 , 1962 WL 1147 (1962), aff’d, 319 F.2d 532 (3rd Cir.1963) (holding that contingent attorney fees are "gross income to [taxpayer] under the familiar principles of Lucas v. Earl"). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Crews Oil Company, an Oklahoma Corporation
v.
The Superior Oil Company, a California Corporation, Ambassador Oil Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Apache Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
7245_1.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Aug 7, 1963.
319 F.2d 532
Published

319 F.2d 532

CREWS OIL COMPANY, an Oklahoma corporation, Appellant,
v.
The SUPERIOR OIL COMPANY, a California corporation, Ambassador Oil Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Apache Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Appellees.

No. 7245.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

August 7, 1963.

Appeal from United States District Court, Eastern District of Oklahoma; Luther F. Bohanon, Dist. Judge.

F. Paul Thieman, Jr., Tulsa, Okl., for appellant.

Franklin D. Hettinger, Tulsa, Okl. (Fenelon Boesche, R.B. McDermott and T. Hillas Eskridge, Tulsa, Okl., with him on brief), for appellee, Apache Corp.

C. Harold Thweatt, Oklahoma City, Okl. (Richard W. Fowler, Oklahoma City, Okl., with him on brief), for appellees, The Superior Oil Co. and Ambassador Oil Corp.

Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and PICKETT and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

This is an appeal from a summary judgment on stipulated facts, wherein the trial Court refused to cancel part of an oil and gas lease, which appellant contends expired, for nondevelopment during its primary term. The appellant seeks to factually distinguish this case from Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company v. Isaacson, 10 Cir., 255 F.2d 669; Whitaker v. Texaco, Inc., 10 Cir., 283 F.2d 169; Cox v. Gulf Oil Corporation, 10 Cir., 301 F.2d 122; and Clovis v. Pacific Northwest Pipeline Corporation, 140 Colo. 552, 345 P.2d 729. But, we think this case is indistinguishably similar, and the judgment is Affirmed, on authority of those cases.

2

MURRAH, Chief Judge (concurring specially).

3

I agree that this case is indistinguishably similar to the cited cases. In view of the compulsory spacing and drilling unitization, there is nothing in the unexercised pooling option of the lease, which would justify a different result in this case. The failure of the lessee to exercise its pooling option, in no way affects the rule of the cited cases, i. e., that the entire lease is extended beyond its primary term, by production from a well within a prescribed drilling unit, which includes a portion (however small) of the lease.

4

The judgment must be affirmed, on authority of those cases, but I cannot consent to affirmance of the case without reaffirming my views expressed in Whitaker.