Bixler v. Lamar Exploration Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that a lease can be held under the habendum clause by virtue of a shut-in gas well that is capable of producing in paying quantities
• recognizing that a lease can be held under the habendum clause by virtue of a shut-in gas well that is capable of producing in paying quantities
• without citing or discussing lease language, remanding case for a determination of whether the well was capable of production in paying quantities

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Aliron International, Inc. v. Cherokee Nation Industries, Inc.
  D.C. Circuit· 2008-07-08· cited 85×
• HALL v. GALMOR
  Supreme Court of Oklahoma· 2018-06-26· cited 72×
• Gay v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co.
  Supreme Court of Oklahoma· 1995-10-03· cited 26×
• Fisher v. Grace Petroleum Corp.
  Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma· 1991-10-29· cited 12×
• House of Sight & Sound, Inc. v. Faulkner
  Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma· 1995-09-05· cited 4×
• State v. Porky's Jungle Co.
  Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma· 1991-06-11· cited 2×
• Highland Crossing, Lp v. Ken Laster Co.
  Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma· 2010-06-25
• OIL VALLEY PETROLEUM v. MOORE
  Supreme Court of Oklahoma· 2023-09-19

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Davis v. Gwaltney
  Supreme Court of Oklahoma· 1955-12-20· cited 63×
• Snow v. Winn
  Supreme Court of Oklahoma· 1980-02-26· cited 45×
• Davis v. Hastings
  Supreme Court of Oklahoma· 1953-09-15· cited 17×
• Geb v. Wilkins
  Supreme Court of Oklahoma· 1965-02-16· cited 12×
• Malnar v. Whitfield
  Supreme Court of Oklahoma· 1985-10-08· cited 10×