52 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1919–2023 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pack v. Santa Fe Mineralsgreen2 sentences2023We agree that keeping the base lease viable by the habendum clause is not by mere production, but a commercially profitable production which is often referred to as "production in paying quantities." ¶49 In Pack v. Santa Fe Minerals , 1994 OK 23 , 869 P.2d 323 , we quoted from Hoyt v. Continental Oil , 1980 OK 1 , 606 P.2d 560 , and noted "our commitment 'to the principle that production means production in paying quantities in Oklahoma when the term appears in the habendum clause of an oil and gas lease.'" Pack , 1994 OK ¶23, 869 P.2d at 323 . 2023See Hall , 2018 OK 59, ¶ 36 , 427 P.3d at 1068 ; Pack , 1994 OK 23, ¶ 16 , 869 P.2d at 328 ; accord 4 Kuntz, supra note 121, § 47.3(a)(1) (discussing the "[p]urpose and effect" of a cessation-of-production clause and stating "the clause is not activated and the prescribed period within which operations must be commenced does not begin to run until production in paying quantities has ceased under the test applied to the habendum clause"); 2 Kuntz, supra note 121, § 26.6 ("[I]f the 'production' requirement of the habendum clause is met, the cessation-of-production clause is not triggered." (citi | 5 | 9 |
Wood v. TXO Production Corp.green2 sentences2015In Wood v. TXO Production Corp., 854 P.2d 880, 881 (Okla.,1992), we determined that gas is "sold" when it enters the purchaser's line. [2. 2015In Wood v. TXO Production Corp ., 854 P.2d 880, 881 (Okla. 1992), we determined that gas is "sold" when it enters the purchaser's line. [2 P.3d 329] Furthermore, this Court has held that "royalty" is the interest in production where a property is under lease for oil and gas. | 4 | 4 |
Hoyt v. Continental Oil Co.green2 sentences2023We agree that keeping the base lease viable by the habendum clause is not by mere production, but a commercially profitable production which is often referred to as "production in paying quantities." ¶49 In Pack v. Santa Fe Minerals , 1994 OK 23 , 869 P.2d 323 , we quoted from Hoyt v. Continental Oil , 1980 OK 1 , 606 P.2d 560 , and noted "our commitment 'to the principle that production means production in paying quantities in Oklahoma when the term appears in the habendum clause of an oil and gas lease.'" Pack , 1994 OK ¶23, 869 P.2d at 323 . 2023We agree that keeping the base lease viable by the habendum clause is not by mere production, but a commercially profitable production which is often referred to as "production in paying quantities." ¶49 In Pack v. Santa Fe Minerals , 1994 OK 23 , 869 P.2d 323 , we quoted from Hoyt v. Continental Oil , 1980 OK 1 , 606 P.2d 560 , and noted "our commitment 'to the principle that production means production in paying quantities in Oklahoma when the term appears in the habendum clause of an oil and gas lease.'" Pack , 1994 OK ¶23, 869 P.2d at 323 . | 3 | 6 |
Clifton v. Koontzgreen2 sentences2023Therefore, the cessation-of-production clause and the 60-day time period contained therein have no bearing on anything that is done before the cessation occurs, including the assessment of whether a cessation has occurred. ¶29 Second, we agree with Defendants/Petitioners and their treatise that "[i]t is not the purpose of the cessation of production clause to establish an accounting period for purposes of determining if production is in paying quantities." 4 Kuntz, supra note 121, § 47.3(a)(1); accord Clifton v. Koontz , 325 S.W.2d 684, 690 (Tex. 1959) (" . . . however, if production never cea 2023Therefore, the cessation-of-production clause and the 60-day time period contained therein have no bearing on anything that is done before the cessation occurs, including the assessment of whether a cessation has occurred. ¶29 Second, we agree with Defendants/Petitioners and their treatise that "[i]t is not the purpose of the cessation of production clause to establish an accounting period for purposes of determining if production is in paying quantities." 4 Kuntz, supra note 121, § 47.3(a)(1); accord Clifton v. Koontz , 325 S.W.2d 684, 690 (Tex. 1959) (" . . . however, if production never cea | 3 | 4 |
Stewart v. Amerada Hess Corp.green2 sentences2018Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 121 Okla. 135 , 248 P. at 333 ; 2 Kuntz, supra note 59, § 26.5, at 335. 61 Smith , 2004 OK 10 , ¶ 9, 85 P.3d at 833 (quoting Hininger , 1987 OK 26 , ¶ 6, 738 P.2d at 140 , and citing Stewart , 1979 OK 145 , ¶ 6, 604 P.2d at 857 ); accord Mason , 1981 OK 73 , ¶ 3, 630 P.2d at 1284 ; Henry , 1954 OK 170 , ¶ 6, 274 P.2d at 546 ; Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 121 Okla. 135 , 248 P. at 333 . 62 Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶¶ 5 n.1, 8-12, 869 P.2d at 325 n.1, 326-27 ("The term 'produced' as used in the lease clauses means 'capable of producing in paying quantities.' 2018Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 121 Okla. 135 , 248 P. at 333 ; 2 Kuntz, supra note 59, § 26.5, at 335. 61 Smith , 2004 OK 10 , ¶ 9, 85 P.3d at 833 (quoting Hininger , 1987 OK 26 , ¶ 6, 738 P.2d at 140 , and citing Stewart , 1979 OK 145 , ¶ 6, 604 P.2d at 857 ); accord Mason , 1981 OK 73 , ¶ 3, 630 P.2d at 1284 ; Henry , 1954 OK 170 , ¶ 6, 274 P.2d at 546 ; Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 121 Okla. 135 , 248 P. at 333 . 62 Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶¶ 5 n.1, 8-12, 869 P.2d at 325 n.1, 326-27 ("The term 'produced' as used in the lease clauses means 'capable of producing in paying quantities.' | 2 | 6 |
HALL v. GALMORgreen2 sentences2023See Hall , 2018 OK 59, ¶ 36 , 427 P.3d at 1068 ; Pack , 1994 OK 23, ¶ 16 , 869 P.2d at 328 ; accord 4 Kuntz, supra note 121, § 47.3(a)(1) (discussing the "[p]urpose and effect" of a cessation-of-production clause and stating "the clause is not activated and the prescribed period within which operations must be commenced does not begin to run until production in paying quantities has ceased under the test applied to the habendum clause"); 2 Kuntz, supra note 121, § 26.6 ("[I]f the 'production' requirement of the habendum clause is met, the cessation-of-production clause is not triggered." (citi 2023See Hall , 2018 OK 59, ¶ 36 , 427 P.3d at 1068 ; Pack , 1994 OK 23, ¶ 16 , 869 P.2d at 328 ; accord 4 Kuntz, supra note 121, § 47.3(a)(1) (discussing the "[p]urpose and effect" of a cessation-of-production clause and stating "the clause is not activated and the prescribed period within which operations must be commenced does not begin to run until production in paying quantities has ceased under the test applied to the habendum clause"); 2 Kuntz, supra note 121, § 26.6 ("[I]f the 'production' requirement of the habendum clause is met, the cessation-of-production clause is not triggered." (citi | 2 | 5 |
Rist v. Westhoma Oil Companygreen2 sentences2023The phrases "primary term" and "habendum clause" have well-known meanings in our jurisprudence. ¶43 One court has explained an incomplete but useful definition for a "primary term" as the period of time stated in the lease "during which the lease may be kept alive by a lessee by virtue of drilling operations or the payment of rentals, even though there is no production in paying quantities, . . . [and] is also a period of time at the end of which the estate granted will terminate but which estate may be extended by some other provision, usually one for production." Hall v. Glamor , 2018 OK 59 2023The phrases "primary term" and "habendum clause" have well-known meanings in our jurisprudence. ¶43 One court has explained an incomplete but useful definition for a "primary term" as the period of time stated in the lease "during which the lease may be kept alive by a lessee by virtue of drilling operations or the payment of rentals, even though there is no production in paying quantities, . . . [and] is also a period of time at the end of which the estate granted will terminate but which estate may be extended by some other provision, usually one for production." Hall v. Glamor , 2018 OK 59 | 2 | 3 |
Greer v. Salmongreen2 sentences2018Id. ¶ 16, 869 P.2d at 328 ; see also Hoyt , 1980 OK 1 , ¶ 10, 606 P.2d at 563 (referring to the cessation-of-production clause as an agreement of the parties fixing a "period of grace" (quoting Greer , 479 P.2d at 297 )), quoted in French , 1986 OK 22 , ¶ 8, 725 P.2d at 277 . 85 Voiles v. Santa Fe Minerals, Inc. , 1996 OK 13 , ¶ 9, 911 P.2d 1205, 1208 (noting the Pack case "explained that a sixty-day cessation of production clause requires the well to be capable of producing in paying quantities, but that a lease capable of producing in paying quantities will not terminate under that claus 2018Id. ¶ 16, 869 P.2d at 328 ; see also Hoyt , 1980 OK 1 , ¶ 10, 606 P.2d at 563 (referring to the cessation-of-production clause as an agreement of the parties fixing a "period of grace" (quoting Greer , 479 P.2d at 297 ) ), quoted in French , 1986 OK 22 , ¶ 8, 725 P.2d at 277 . 85 Voiles v. Santa Fe Minerals, Inc. , 1996 OK 13 , ¶ 9, 911 P.2d 1205 , 1208 (noting the Pack case "explained that a sixty-day cessation of production clause requires the well to be capable of producing in paying quantities, but that a lease capable of producing in paying quantities will not terminate under that clause" | 2 | 3 |
French v. Tenneco Oil Co.green2 sentences2018Va. , 1958 OK 289 , ¶ 44, 336 P.2d at 1095 ; Cotner , 1958 OK 208 , ¶ 5, 330 P.2d at 220 . 81 See French , 1986 OK 22 , ¶ 8, 725 P.2d at 277 ; Hoyt , 1980 OK 1 , ¶ 10, 606 P.2d at 563 (citing cases from other jurisdictions). 82 See Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶ 16, 869 P.2d at 328 . 83 Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶¶ 14-15, 869 P.2d at 328 ; accord Hoyt , 1980 OK 1 , ¶¶ 9-10, 606 P.2d at 563 (stating that, at least when one considers a cessation of production during the secondary term of the lease, the term "production" means "production in paying quantities" for purposes of both the habendum clause a 2018Va. , 1958 OK 289 , ¶ 44, 336 P.2d at 1095 ; Cotner , 1958 OK 208 , ¶ 5, 330 P.2d at 220 . 81 See French , 1986 OK 22 , ¶ 8, 725 P.2d at 277 ; Hoyt , 1980 OK 1 , ¶ 10, 606 P.2d at 563 (citing cases from other jurisdictions). 82 See Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶ 16, 869 P.2d at 328 . 83 Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶¶ 14-15, 869 P.2d at 328 ; accord Hoyt , 1980 OK 1 , ¶¶ 9-10, 606 P.2d at 563 (stating that, at least when one considers a cessation of production during the secondary term of the lease, the term "production" means "production in paying quantities" for purposes of both the habendum clause and the ce | 2 | 3 |
Voiles v. Santa Fe Minerals, Inc.green2 sentences2018Id. ¶ 16, 869 P.2d at 328 ; see also Hoyt , 1980 OK 1 , ¶ 10, 606 P.2d at 563 (referring to the cessation-of-production clause as an agreement of the parties fixing a "period of grace" (quoting Greer , 479 P.2d at 297 ) ), quoted in French , 1986 OK 22 , ¶ 8, 725 P.2d at 277 . 85 Voiles v. Santa Fe Minerals, Inc. , 1996 OK 13 , ¶ 9, 911 P.2d 1205 , 1208 (noting the Pack case "explained that a sixty-day cessation of production clause requires the well to be capable of producing in paying quantities, but that a lease capable of producing in paying quantities will not terminate under that clause" 2004Similarly, in Voiles v. Santa Fe Minerals, Inc., 1996 OK 13 , 911 P.2d 1205 , an action to quiet title in certain leasehold interests based upon the theory that a cessation of production clause controlled the habendum clause and terminated the base leases, we recognized the difference in an action filed by mineral owners to quiet title and cancel existing oil and gas leases, and a claim for breach of the implied covenant to market. | 2 | 3 |
| Mason v. Ladd Petroleum Corp.green | 2 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. Com'rs, Etc. v. Amoco, Etc.green2 sentences2018Co. , 1982 OK 14 , ¶ 6, 645 P.2d at 470 ("[Cap]ability to produce a shut-in gas well will hold a lease as long as the operator seeks a market with due diligence." (citing McVicker , 1958 OK 49 , 322 P.2d 410 )); Carter Oil Co. of W. 2018Co. , 1982 OK 14 , ¶ 6, 645 P.2d at 470 ("[Cap]ability to produce a shut-in gas well will hold a lease as long as the operator seeks a market with due diligence." (citing McVicker , 1958 OK 49 , 322 P.2d 410 ) ); Carter Oil Co. of W. | 2 | 2 |
Bixler v. Lamar Exploration Co.green2 sentences2018Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 121 Okla. 135 , 248 P. at 333 ; 2 Kuntz, supra note 59, § 26.5, at 335. 61 Smith , 2004 OK 10 , ¶ 9, 85 P.3d at 833 (quoting Hininger , 1987 OK 26 , ¶ 6, 738 P.2d at 140 , and citing Stewart , 1979 OK 145 , ¶ 6, 604 P.2d at 857 ); accord Mason , 1981 OK 73 , ¶ 3, 630 P.2d at 1284 ; Henry , 1954 OK 170 , ¶ 6, 274 P.2d at 546 ; Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 121 Okla. 135 , 248 P. at 333 . 62 Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶¶ 5 n.1, 8-12, 869 P.2d at 325 n.1, 326-27 ("The term 'produced' as used in the lease clauses means 'capable of producing in paying quantities.' 2018Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 121 Okla. 135 , 248 P. at 333 ; 2 Kuntz, supra note 59, § 26.5, at 335. 61 Smith , 2004 OK 10 , ¶ 9, 85 P.3d at 833 (quoting Hininger , 1987 OK 26 , ¶ 6, 738 P.2d at 140 , and citing Stewart , 1979 OK 145 , ¶ 6, 604 P.2d at 857 ); accord Mason , 1981 OK 73 , ¶ 3, 630 P.2d at 1284 ; Henry , 1954 OK 170 , ¶ 6, 274 P.2d at 546 ; Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 121 Okla. 135 , 248 P. at 333 . 62 Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶¶ 5 n.1, 8-12, 869 P.2d at 325 n.1, 326-27 ("The term 'produced' as used in the lease clauses means 'capable of producing in paying quantities.' | 2 | 2 |
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2018Therefore, the lease will continue as long as the well is capable of production in paying quantities subject, of course, to any violation of any other express provisions such as the shut-in royalty clause or implied covenants such as the covenant to market."); Hoyt , 1980 OK 1 , ¶ 10, 606 P.2d at 563 (stating the inverse: "If the lessee fails to resume operations within the 60-day period provided in this clause neither the cessation of production clause or the habendum clause is satisfied and the lease terminates upon the expiration of the given time period."). 86 Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶ 16, 8 2018Therefore, the lease will continue as long as the well is capable of production in paying quantities subject, of course, to any violation of any other express provisions such as the shut-in royalty clause or implied covenants such as the covenant to market."); Hoyt , 1980 OK 1 , ¶ 10, 606 P.2d at 563 (stating the inverse: "If the lessee fails to resume operations within the 60-day period provided in this clause neither the cessation of production clause or the habendum clause is satisfied and the lease terminates upon the expiration of the given time period."). 86 Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶ 16, 869 | 1 | 2 |
| Townsend v. Creekmore-Rooney Companygreen | 1 | 2 |
| Letteer v. Conservancy District No. 30green | 1 | 1 |
| Mitchell v. Amerada Hess Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Corbyn v. Oklahoma Citygreen | 1 | 1 |
| East Alabama Railway Co. v. Doe Ex Dem. Visschergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Commissioners of the Land Office v. Carter Oil Co.
green
2 sentences2018Va. , 1958 OK 289 , ¶ 44, 336 P.2d at 1095 ; Cotner , 1958 OK 208 , ¶ 5, 330 P.2d at 220 . 81 See French , 1986 OK 22 , ¶ 8, 725 P.2d at 277 ; Hoyt , 1980 OK 1 , ¶ 10, 606 P.2d at 563 (citing cases from other jurisdictions). 82 See Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶ 16, 869 P.2d at 328 . 83 Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶¶ 14-15, 869 P.2d at 328 ; accord Hoyt , 1980 OK 1 , ¶¶ 9-10, 606 P.2d at 563 (stating that, at least when one considers a cessation of production during the secondary term of the lease, the term "production" means "production in paying quantities" for purposes of both the habendum clause and the ce 2018Va. , 1958 OK 289 , ¶ 44, 336 P.2d at 1095 ; Cotner , 1958 OK 208 , ¶ 5, 330 P.2d at 220 . 81 See French , 1986 OK 22 , ¶ 8, 725 P.2d at 277 ; Hoyt , 1980 OK 1 , ¶ 10, 606 P.2d at 563 (citing cases from other jurisdictions). 82 See Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶ 16, 869 P.2d at 328 . 83 Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶¶ 14-15, 869 P.2d at 328 ; accord Hoyt , 1980 OK 1 , ¶¶ 9-10, 606 P.2d at 563 (stating that, at least when one considers a cessation of production during the secondary term of the lease, the term "production" means "production in paying quantities" for purposes of both the habendum clause and the ce | 4 | 1980–2018 |
McVicker v. Horn, Robinson & Nathan
green
2 sentences1969We note, however, our decision in McVicker v. Horn, Robinson and Nathan et al., Okl., 322 P.2d 410 , 71 A.L.R.2d 1211 , which concluded that, absent specific provision therefor, marketing of oil or gas is not required in order to satisfy the habendum clause of a lease requiring production within one year, or as long thereafter as either is produced. 1969We note, however, our decision in McVicker v. Horn, Robinson and Nathan et al., Okl., 322 P.2d 410 , 71 A.L.R.2d 1211 , which concluded that, absent specific provision therefor, marketing of oil or gas is not required in order to satisfy the habendum clause of a lease requiring production within one year, or as long thereafter as either is produced. | 4 | 1969–2018 |
Walden v. Potts
green
2 sentences2015In Walden v. Potts, 194 Okla. 453 , 152 P.2d 923 (1944), this Court defined the word "produced" as it is used in the habendum clause ("so long as oil and gas is produced in paying quantities") to mean not only discovery of the product, but also extracting it from the ground. 2015In Walden v. Potts, 194 Okla. 453 , 152 P.2d 923 (1944), this Court defined the word "produced" as it is used in the habendum clause ("so long as oil and gas is produced in paying quantities") to mean not only discovery of the product, but also extracting it from the ground. | 4 | 1996–2015 |
Westcott v. Bozarth
neutral
2 sentences1999In construing a deed, the court must ascertain the grant- or’s intention from the entire instrument without undue reference to any part; and technical meaning of words must be held to give way to the manifest intent of the parties. [Citations omitted.] ¶ 6 In Westcott v. Bozarth, 1949 OK -, 202 Okla. 149 , 211 P.2d 258 , the Supreme Court ruled a clause found in the habendum clause immediately after the warranty clause was an effective reservation of the minerals by the grantor. 1999In construing a deed, the court must ascertain the grant- or’s intention from the entire instrument without undue reference to any part; and technical meaning of words must be held to give way to the manifest intent of the parties. [Citations omitted.] ¶ 6 In Westcott v. Bozarth, 1949 OK -, 202 Okla. 149 , 211 P.2d 258 , the Supreme Court ruled a clause found in the habendum clause immediately after the warranty clause was an effective reservation of the minerals by the grantor. | 4 | 1953–1999 |
Hininger v. Kaiser
green
2 sentences2018Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 248 P. at 333 ; 2 Kuntz, supra note 59, § 26.5, at 335. 61 Smith , 2004 OK 10 , ¶ 9, 85 P.3d at 833 (quoting Hininger , 1987 OK 26 , ¶ 6, 738 P.2d at 140 , and citing Stewart , 1979 OK 145 , ¶ 6, 604 P.2d at 857 ); accord Mason , 1981 OK 73 , ¶ 3, 630 P.2d at 1284 ; Henry , 1954 OK 170 , ¶ 6, 274 P.2d at 546 ; Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 248 P. at 333 . 62 Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶¶ 5 n.1, 8-12, 869 P.2d at 325 n.1, 326-27 ("The term 'produced' as used in the lease clauses means 'capable of producing in paying quantities.'"); James Energy Co. , 2018Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 121 Okla. 135 , 248 P. at 333 ; 2 Kuntz, supra note 59, § 26.5, at 335. 61 Smith , 2004 OK 10 , ¶ 9, 85 P.3d at 833 (quoting Hininger , 1987 OK 26 , ¶ 6, 738 P.2d at 140 , and citing Stewart , 1979 OK 145 , ¶ 6, 604 P.2d at 857 ); accord Mason , 1981 OK 73 , ¶ 3, 630 P.2d at 1284 ; Henry , 1954 OK 170 , ¶ 6, 274 P.2d at 546 ; Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 121 Okla. 135 , 248 P. at 333 . 62 Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶¶ 5 n.1, 8-12, 869 P.2d at 325 n.1, 326-27 ("The term 'produced' as used in the lease clauses means 'capable of producing in paying quantities.' | 3 | 2004–2018 |
Echolustee Oil Co. v. Johnston
green
2 sentences1963This was our holding in Echolustee Oil Co. v. Johnston, 153 Old. 92, 3 P.2d 227 , and this-rule has been followed in numerous cases, among which are Fry v. Hurst, Okl., 293 P.2d 552 ; Rose v. Cook, 207 Okl. 582 , 250 P.2d 848 ; Bascom v. Maxey, 195 Okl. 259 , 157 P.2d 158 ; Jarrett v. Moore et al., 159 Okl. 93 , 14 P.2d 390 . 1952Citing in support thereof Echolustee Oil Co. v. Johnston, 153 Okla. 92 , 3 P. 2d 227 . | 3 | 1945–1963 |
Blair v. Natural Gas Anadarko Co.
neutral
2 sentences2023Stated more broadly, the issue concerns how to determine whether production that maintains a gas lease under the habendum clause has ceased, including whether the cessation-of-production clause plays any role in narrowing the window of time that should be considered in making such a determination. ¶24 Defendants/Petitioners contend that "whether a well remains capable of production and thus perpetuates the lease under the habendum clause is assessed over a reasonable look-back period of time sufficient to consider whether a prudent operator would continue or abandon operations." 117 They argue 2023Stated more broadly, the issue concerns how to determine whether production that maintains a gas lease under the habendum clause has ceased, including whether the cessation-of-production clause plays any role in narrowing the window of time that should be considered in making such a determination. ¶24 Defendants/Petitioners contend that "whether a well remains capable of production and thus perpetuates the lease under the habendum clause is assessed over a reasonable look-back period of time sufficient to consider whether a prudent operator would continue or abandon operations." 117 They argue | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Panhandle Cooperative Royalty Co. v. Cunningham
green
2 sentences2018Estate of Jarboe , 1971 OK 63 , ¶ 15, 495 P.2d 108 , 113, for the proposition that we are bound to consider all the provisions of a contract in construing the terms of a contract and to use each provision to help interpret the others. 84 Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶¶ 14-21, 869 P.2d at 328-29 ; accord 4 Kuntz, supra note 79, § 47.3(b), at 105-06 ("[I]f the effect of the cessation of production clause is to modify the habendum clause under the circumstances, the 'production' required for the cessation of production clause should be the same as the production required to satisfy the habendum clause, an 2018Estate of Jarboe , 1971 OK 63 , ¶ 15, 495 P.2d 108 , 113, for the proposition that we are bound to consider all the provisions of a contract in construing the terms of a contract and to use each provision to help interpret the others. 84 Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶¶ 14-21, 869 P.2d at 328-29 ; accord 4 Kuntz, supra note 79, § 47.3(b), at 105-06 ("[I]f the effect of the cessation of production clause is to modify the habendum clause under the circumstances, the 'production' required for the cessation of production clause should be the same as the production required to satisfy the habendum clause, an | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| Cotner v. Warren green | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State ex rel. Commissioners of Land Office v. Amoco Production Co.
neutral
2 sentences2018Co. , 1982 OK 14 , ¶ 6, 645 P.2d at 470 ("[Cap]ability to produce a shut-in gas well will hold a lease as long as the operator seeks a market with due diligence." (citing McVicker , 1958 OK 49 , 322 P.2d 410 )); Carter Oil Co. of W. 2018Co. , 1982 OK 14 , ¶ 6, 645 P.2d at 470 ("[Cap]ability to produce a shut-in gas well will hold a lease as long as the operator seeks a market with due diligence." (citing McVicker , 1958 OK 49 , 322 P.2d 410 ) ); Carter Oil Co. of W. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Fisher v. Grace Petroleum Corp.
green
2 sentences2018Since this Court's decision in Pack v. Santa Fe Minerals , 1994 OK 23 , 869 P.2d 323 , it has been clear that a well's capability to produce in paying quantities would satisfy both the habendum clause and the cessation-of-production clause and that the cessation-of-production clause is only triggered where a well has become incapable of paying production. 87 ¶38 Nevertheless, Hall argues for the opposite result, relying heavily upon the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals' opinion in Fisher v. Grace Petroleum Corp. , 1991 OK CIV APP 112 , 830 P.2d 1380 . 88 Citing Fisher , Hall voices concern that 2018Since this Court's decision in Pack v. Santa Fe Minerals , 1994 OK 23 , 869 P.2d 323 , it has been clear that a well's capability to produce in paying quantities would satisfy both the habendum clause and the cessation-of-production clause and that the cessation-of-production clause is only triggered where a well has become incapable of paying production. 87 ¶38 Nevertheless, Hall argues for the opposite result, relying heavily upon the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals' opinion in Fisher v. Grace Petroleum Corp. , 1991 OK CIV APP 112 , 830 P.2d 1380 . 88 Citing Fisher , Hall voices concern that | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Gard v. Kaiser
green
2 sentences2018Therefore, the lease will continue as long as the well is capable of production in paying quantities subject, of course, to any violation of any other express provisions such as the shut-in royalty clause or implied covenants such as the covenant to market."); Hoyt , 1980 OK 1 , ¶ 10, 606 P.2d at 563 (stating the inverse: "If the lessee fails to resume operations within the 60-day period provided in this clause neither the cessation of production clause or the habendum clause is satisfied and the lease terminates upon the expiration of the given time period."). 86 Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶ 16, 8 2018Therefore, the lease will continue as long as the well is capable of production in paying quantities subject, of course, to any violation of any other express provisions such as the shut-in royalty clause or implied covenants such as the covenant to market."); Hoyt , 1980 OK 1 , ¶ 10, 606 P.2d at 563 (stating the inverse: "If the lessee fails to resume operations within the 60-day period provided in this clause neither the cessation of production clause or the habendum clause is satisfied and the lease terminates upon the expiration of the given time period."). 86 Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶ 16, 869 | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Hamilton v. Amwar Petroleum Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2018That suggested to me he thought the wells could be producing in paying quantities for him."). 40 ROA, p.1303, Decision on the Merits at 1. 41 Id. , p.1304, Decision on the Merits at 2 (quoting Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶ 21, 869 P.2d at 329 ). 42 Id. , p.1303, Decision on the Merits at 1 (quoting James Energy Co. , 1992 OK 117 , ¶¶ 17-18, 847 P.2d at 338 ). 43 Id. , p.1305, Decision on the Merits at 3. 44 Smith v. Marshall Oil Corp. , 2004 OK 10 , ¶ 8, 85 P.3d 830 , 833 ; Hininger v. Kaiser, 1987 OK 26 , ¶ 10, 738 P.2d 137 , 141 ; Cotner v. Warren , 1958 OK 208 , ¶ 5, 330 P.2d 217 , 219 ; Henry v. C 2018That suggested to me he thought the wells could be producing in paying quantities for him."). 40 ROA, p.1303, Decision on the Merits at 1. 41 Id. , p.1304, Decision on the Merits at 2 (quoting Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶ 21, 869 P.2d at 329 ). 42 Id. , p.1303, Decision on the Merits at 1 (quoting James Energy Co. , 1992 OK 117 , ¶¶ 17-18, 847 P.2d at 338 ). 43 Id. , p.1305, Decision on the Merits at 3. 44 Smith v. Marshall Oil Corp. , 2004 OK 10 , ¶ 8, 85 P.3d 830 , 833 ; Hininger v. Kaiser, 1987 OK 26 , ¶ 10, 738 P.2d 137 , 141 ; Cotner v. Warren , 1958 OK 208 , ¶ 5, 330 P.2d 217 , 219 ; Henry v. C | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Henry v. Clay
green
2 sentences2018Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 121 Okla. 135 , 248 P. at 333 ; 2 Kuntz, supra note 59, § 26.5, at 335. 61 Smith , 2004 OK 10 , ¶ 9, 85 P.3d at 833 (quoting Hininger , 1987 OK 26 , ¶ 6, 738 P.2d at 140 , and citing Stewart , 1979 OK 145 , ¶ 6, 604 P.2d at 857 ); accord Mason , 1981 OK 73 , ¶ 3, 630 P.2d at 1284 ; Henry , 1954 OK 170 , ¶ 6, 274 P.2d at 546 ; Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 121 Okla. 135 , 248 P. at 333 . 62 Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶¶ 5 n.1, 8-12, 869 P.2d at 325 n.1, 326-27 ("The term 'produced' as used in the lease clauses means 'capable of producing in paying quantities.' 2018Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 121 Okla. 135 , 248 P. at 333 ; 2 Kuntz, supra note 59, § 26.5, at 335. 61 Smith , 2004 OK 10 , ¶ 9, 85 P.3d at 833 (quoting Hininger , 1987 OK 26 , ¶ 6, 738 P.2d at 140 , and citing Stewart , 1979 OK 145 , ¶ 6, 604 P.2d at 857 ); accord Mason , 1981 OK 73 , ¶ 3, 630 P.2d at 1284 ; Henry , 1954 OK 170 , ¶ 6, 274 P.2d at 546 ; Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 121 Okla. 135 , 248 P. at 333 . 62 Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶¶ 5 n.1, 8-12, 869 P.2d at 325 n.1, 326-27 ("The term 'produced' as used in the lease clauses means 'capable of producing in paying quantities.' | 2 | 2018–2018 |
James Energy Co. v. HCG Energy Corp.
green
2 sentences2018Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 248 P. at 333 ; 2 Kuntz, supra note 59, § 26.5, at 335. 61 Smith , 2004 OK 10 , ¶ 9, 85 P.3d at 833 (quoting Hininger , 1987 OK 26 , ¶ 6, 738 P.2d at 140 , and citing Stewart , 1979 OK 145 , ¶ 6, 604 P.2d at 857 ); accord Mason , 1981 OK 73 , ¶ 3, 630 P.2d at 1284 ; Henry , 1954 OK 170 , ¶ 6, 274 P.2d at 546 ; Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 248 P. at 333 . 62 Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶¶ 5 n.1, 8-12, 869 P.2d at 325 n.1, 326-27 ("The term 'produced' as used in the lease clauses means 'capable of producing in paying quantities.'"); James Energy Co. , 2018Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 121 Okla. 135 , 248 P. at 333 ; 2 Kuntz, supra note 59, § 26.5, at 335. 61 Smith , 2004 OK 10 , ¶ 9, 85 P.3d at 833 (quoting Hininger , 1987 OK 26 , ¶ 6, 738 P.2d at 140 , and citing Stewart , 1979 OK 145 , ¶ 6, 604 P.2d at 857 ); accord Mason , 1981 OK 73 , ¶ 3, 630 P.2d at 1284 ; Henry , 1954 OK 170 , ¶ 6, 274 P.2d at 546 ; Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 121 Okla. 135 , 248 P. at 333 . 62 Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶¶ 5 n.1, 8-12, 869 P.2d at 325 n.1, 326-27 ("The term 'produced' as used in the lease clauses means 'capable of producing in paying quantities.' | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Siniard v. Davis
green
2 sentences2018Similarly, in the case of Siniard v. Davis , 1984 OK CIV APP 13 , 678 P.2d 1197 , the Court of Civil Appeals stated, "Section 87.1(b) has the purpose of preventing production from a unit from satisfying the habendum clause of any lease for more than ninety days beyond the expiration of the primary term as to acreage outside of the unit when a part of the leased premises is included in a unit of 160 acres or more." 114 Lastly, a Report of the Oil and Gas Appellate Referee from an Oklahoma Corporation Commission matter, In re Application of Sandridge Exploration & Production, L.L.C. for Drilling 2018Similarly, in the case of Siniard v. Davis , 1984 OK CIV APP 13 , 678 P.2d 1197 , the Court of Civil Appeals stated, " Section 87.1(b) has the purpose of preventing production from a unit from satisfying the habendum clause of any lease for more than ninety days beyond the expiration of the primary term as to acreage outside of the unit when a part of the leased premises is included in a unit of 160 acres or more." 114 Lastly, a Report of the Oil and Gas Appellate Referee from an Oklahoma Corporation Commission matter, In re Application of Sandridge Exploration & Production, L.L.C. for Drillin | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Smith v. Marshall Oil Corp.
green
2 sentences2018Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 121 Okla. 135 , 248 P. at 333 ; 2 Kuntz, supra note 59, § 26.5, at 335. 61 Smith , 2004 OK 10 , ¶ 9, 85 P.3d at 833 (quoting Hininger , 1987 OK 26 , ¶ 6, 738 P.2d at 140 , and citing Stewart , 1979 OK 145 , ¶ 6, 604 P.2d at 857 ); accord Mason , 1981 OK 73 , ¶ 3, 630 P.2d at 1284 ; Henry , 1954 OK 170 , ¶ 6, 274 P.2d at 546 ; Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 121 Okla. 135 , 248 P. at 333 . 62 Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶¶ 5 n.1, 8-12, 869 P.2d at 325 n.1, 326-27 ("The term 'produced' as used in the lease clauses means 'capable of producing in paying quantities.' 2018Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 121 Okla. 135 , 248 P. at 333 ; 2 Kuntz, supra note 59, § 26.5, at 335. 61 Smith , 2004 OK 10 , ¶ 9, 85 P.3d at 833 (quoting Hininger , 1987 OK 26 , ¶ 6, 738 P.2d at 140 , and citing Stewart , 1979 OK 145 , ¶ 6, 604 P.2d at 857 ); accord Mason , 1981 OK 73 , ¶ 3, 630 P.2d at 1284 ; Henry , 1954 OK 170 , ¶ 6, 274 P.2d at 546 ; Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 121 Okla. 135 , 248 P. at 333 . 62 Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶¶ 5 n.1, 8-12, 869 P.2d at 325 n.1, 326-27 ("The term 'produced' as used in the lease clauses means 'capable of producing in paying quantities.' | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Gypsy Oil Co. v. Marsh
green
2 sentences2018Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 121 Okla. 135 , 248 P. at 333 ; 2 Kuntz, supra note 59, § 26.5, at 335. 61 Smith , 2004 OK 10 , ¶ 9, 85 P.3d at 833 (quoting Hininger , 1987 OK 26 , ¶ 6, 738 P.2d at 140 , and citing Stewart , 1979 OK 145 , ¶ 6, 604 P.2d at 857 ); accord Mason , 1981 OK 73 , ¶ 3, 630 P.2d at 1284 ; Henry , 1954 OK 170 , ¶ 6, 274 P.2d at 546 ; Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 121 Okla. 135 , 248 P. at 333 . 62 Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶¶ 5 n.1, 8-12, 869 P.2d at 325 n.1, 326-27 ("The term 'produced' as used in the lease clauses means 'capable of producing in paying quantities.' 2018Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 121 Okla. 135 , 248 P. at 333 ; 2 Kuntz, supra note 59, § 26.5, at 335. 61 Smith , 2004 OK 10 , ¶ 9, 85 P.3d at 833 (quoting Hininger , 1987 OK 26 , ¶ 6, 738 P.2d at 140 , and citing Stewart , 1979 OK 145 , ¶ 6, 604 P.2d at 857 ); accord Mason , 1981 OK 73 , ¶ 3, 630 P.2d at 1284 ; Henry , 1954 OK 170 , ¶ 6, 274 P.2d at 546 ; Gypsy Oil Co. , 1926 OK 246 , ¶ 18, 121 Okla. 135 , 248 P. at 333 . 62 Pack , 1994 OK 23 , ¶¶ 5 n.1, 8-12, 869 P.2d at 325 n.1, 326-27 ("The term 'produced' as used in the lease clauses means 'capable of producing in paying quantities.' | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| Anthis v. Sullivan Oil & Gas Co. green | 2 | 1926–2010 |
| Breidenthal v. Grooms neutral | 2 | 1937–1953 |
| Nobell v. Town of Beaver neutral | 2 | 1932–1934 |
| Barber v. Flynn green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Marathon Oil Co. v. Corporation Commission green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Hunter v. Clarkson green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Enfield v. Atlantic Richfield Co. neutral | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Barby v. Singer green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| In re the Protest to Assessment of Tax, Home-Stake Production Co. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Union Oil Co. v. Board of Equalization green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Hugoton Production Company v. The United States green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Whitman v. Harrison green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Lahman v. Bassel neutral | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| McQueen v. Sun Oil Co. green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Wilson v. Talbert green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Wainwright v. Wainwright green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Sullivan and Garnett v. James green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Flag Oil Corp. of Delaware v. King Resources Co. green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Frensley v. White green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Pine v. Webster green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Williams v. McCann green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Rose v. Cook green | 1 | 1963–1963 |
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.