10 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Davis Oil Co. v. Cloudgreen2 sentences2013The damage standard under the Act is the "diminution in the fair market value of the surface property resulting from the drilling and maintenance operations." Id., at ¶ 6, 64 P.3d at 1113 , 1115 (citing Davis Oil Co. v. Cloud, 1986 OK 78 , I 22, 766 P.2d 1347, 1852 ). 2013The damage standard under the Act is the "diminution in the fair market value of the surface property resulting from the drilling and maintenance operations." Id. , at ¶ 6, 64 P.3d at 1115 (citing Davis Oil Co. v. Cloud , 1986 OK 73 , ¶ 22, 766 P.2d 1347, 1352 ). | 2 | 5 |
Ward Petroleum Corp. v. Stewartgreen2 sentences2016The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that the Surface Damages "Act partakes of the nature of a condemnation action by virtue of 52 O.S. 2011, § 318.5(F)" and that "the damage standard intended by the Legislature under the Act is the diminution in the fair market value of the surface property resulting from the drilling and maintenance operations." Ward Petroleum Corp. v. Stewart , 2003 OK 11, ¶ 6, 64 P.3d 1113, 1114. 2016The Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that the Surface Damages "Act partakes of the nature of a condemnation action by virtue of 52 O.S. 2011, § 318.5(F)" and that "the damage standard intended by the Legislature under the Act is the diminution in the fair market value of the surface property resulting from the drilling and maintenance operations." Ward Petroleum Corp. v. Stewart , 2003 OK 11, ¶ 6, 64 P.3d 1113, 1114. | 2 | 3 |
Andress v. Bowlbygreen2 sentences2003See Andress v. Bowlby, et al, 1989 OK 78 , 773 P.2d 1265 ; Davis Oil Co., supra . 2003See Andress v. Bowlby, et al, 1989 OK 78 , 773 P.2d 1265 ; Davis Oil Co., supra . | 2 | 2 |
Dyco Petroleum Corp. v. Smithgreen2 sentences2015Dyco Petroleum Corp. v. Smith, 1989 OK 51, ¶ 10 , 771 P.2d 1006, 1008 . 2015Dyco Petroleum Corp. v. Smith, 1989 OK 51, ¶ 10 , 771 P.2d 1006, 1008 . | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chesapeake Operating, Inc. v. Loomis
green
2 sentences2013Trust disagrees, asserting stigma is an appropriate factor to consider, citing Chesapeake Operating, Inc. v. Loomis, 2007 OK CIV APP 55 , 164 P.3d 254 . [ 34 The damage standard intended by the Legislature under the Act is the diminution in value of the entire property which the appraisers may assess by considering the factors set forth in Davis. 2013Trust disagrees, asserting stigma is an appropriate factor to consider, citing Chesapeake Operating, Inc. v. Loomis, 2007 OK CIV APP 55 , 164 P.3d 254 . [ 34 The damage standard intended by the Legislature under the Act is the diminution in value of the entire property which the appraisers may assess by considering the factors set forth in Davis. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Houck v. Hold Oil Corp.
green
2 sentences2007The Oklahoma Supreme Court also has consistently held, without qualification or limitation, that "the damage standard intended by the Legislature under the Act is the diminution in the fair market value of the surface property resulting from the drilling operations." Houck v. Hold Oil Corp., 19983 OK 167 , ¶ 39, 867 P.2d 451, 461-62 . 2003Houck v. Hold Oil Co., 1993 OK 166, ¶ 39 , 867 P.2d 451, 461-62 . | 2 | 2003–2007 |
Moser v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2013The damage standard under the Act is the "diminution in the fair market value of the surface property resulting from the drilling and maintenance operations." Id., at ¶ 6, 64 P.3d at 1113 , 1115 (citing Davis Oil Co. v. Cloud, 1986 OK 78 , I 22, 766 P.2d 1347, 1852 ). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Pelican Production Corp. v. Wishbone Oil & Gas, Inc.
green
1 sentence1996Appellees suggest that in order to reach that result we must disapprove the decision by Division III of this Court in Pelican Production Corp. v. Wishbone Oil & Gas, Inc., 746 P.2d 209 (Okla.App.1987). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific R. Co. v. Hawes
green
2 sentences1985Appellant requested a damage instruction which also did not mention reduction to present worth and simply stated: “The total amount of damages which you arrive at from the evidence, if any, must be damages which you find were directly and proximately caused by the defendants through their negligence, if any, and which must not be oppressive or unconscionable, but which will fairly and reasonably compensate the plaintiffs insofar as the same may be computed in money ...” (Emphasis added.) The appellees point to Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry Co. v. Hawes, 424 P.2d 6 (Okl.1967), in which the 1985Appellant requested a damage instruction which also did not mention reduction to present worth and simply stated: "The total amount of damages which you arrive at from the evidence, if any, must be damages which you find were directly and proximately caused by the defendants through their negligence, if any, and which must not be oppressive or unconscionable, but which will fairly and reasonably compensate the plaintiffs insofar as the same may be computed in money ..." (Emphasis added.) The appellees point to Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry Co. v. Hawes, 424 P.2d 6 (Okl. 1967), in which the | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.