Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Calcasieu Real Estate & Oil Co., 170 So. 785.

22 citing documents.

Armstrong Airport Concessions v. K-Squared Restaurant, LLC 178 So. 3d 1094 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Stated otherwise, “[a] court’s determination as to whether a contract is several or joint should be guided by ‘the rules for the interpretation of contracts.’ ” City of Alexandria v. Brown, 740 F.3d 339, 355 (5th Cir.2014) (citing Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Calcasieu Real Estate & Oil Co., , 170 So.
Tel-Americom, L.L.C. v. Columbia Telecommunications, Inc. 789 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Following Nabors , the Supreme Court in Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Calcasieu Real Estate & Oil Co., , 185 La.
Commercial Nat. Bank v. Rowe 666 So. 2d 1312 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
4th Cir.1990); and Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Calcasieu Real Estate & Oil Co., , 170 So.
Sun Exploration & Production Co. v. Rogers 451 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
not affect the right of the owner of an interest in another portion of the leased premises to continue to claim the benefit of the entirety clause in the lease so as to be entitled to an apportioned share of the royalty from production anywhere on the leased premises.” Supporting the above-quoted conclusions in Williams & Meyers is Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Calcasieu Real Estate & O. Co., , 170 So.
Pasquier, Batson & Co. v. Ewing 367 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
527 (1917); Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Calcasieu Real Estate & Oil Company, , 170 So.
Hall v. Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Co. 359 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
See Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Calcasieu Real Estate & O. Co., , 170 So.
Hall v. LeMay 191 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Loubat v. Audubon Life Insurance Company 177 So. 2d 281 La. 1965
Bourg v. Hebert 70 So. 2d 116 La. 1953
the rights of parties to a contract are to be governed by the intention of the parties thereto, subject only to the law that controls the subject matter of the contract, and that the intention must be gathered from the words as used in the contract and the manner in which it was executed, citing Civil Code, Article 1945 et seq.; Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Calcasieu Real Estate & Oil Co., , 170 So.
Milling v. Collector of Revenue 57 So. 2d 679 La. 1952
See Board of Com’rs of Caddo Levee District v. Pure Oil Co., supra; Roberson v. Pioneer Gas Co., supra; Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Calcasieu Real Estate & Oil Co., Inc., , 170 So.
Milling v. Collector of Revenue 57 So. 2d 679 La. 1952
See Board of Com'rs of Caddo Levee District v. Pure Oil Co., supra; Roberson v. Pioneer Gas Co., supra; Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Calcasieu Real Estate & Oil Co., Inc., , 170 So.
Placid Oil Co. v. George 49 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
Revised Civil Code, Articles 1945-1962; Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Calcasieu Real Estate & Oil Co., , 170 So.
A. Veeder Co. v. Pan American Production Co. 17 So. 2d 891 La. 1944
ing of operations for the drilling of a well on the tract of land belonging to W. A. Nabors and Mrs. Sallie Mag Nabors within the year from the date of the contract prevented a forfeiture of the lease on all of the lands described in the contract.” *613 The ruling in the Nabors case was approved by this court in two recent cases: Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Calcasieu Real Estate & Oil Co., , 170 So.
Amerada Petroleum Corp. v. State Mineral Board 14 So. 2d 61 La. 1943
French v. Querbes 8 So. 2d 631 La. 1942
1260 , in holding that it was the intention of the parties to make the lease a joint one and that their actions brought them within the scope of the case of Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Calcasieu Real Estate & Oil Co., , 170 So.
Martel v. A. v. Eder Co. 6 So. 2d 335 La. 1942
702 , and analyzed by this court in the opinion rendered in Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Calcasieu Real Estate & Oil Co., -768 , 170 So.
Southland Inv. Co. v. Motor Sales Co. 5 So. 2d 324 La. 1941
This court has expressed some doubt as to whether or not Act No. 283 of 1928 permits a husband and wife to contract with each other ( , 170 So.
Robinson v. Horton 2 So. 2d 647 La. 1941
Revised Civil Code, Articles 1945— 1962; Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Calcasieu Real Estate & Oil Co., , 170 So.
Cox v. Acme Land & Investment Co. 188 So. 742 La. 1939
1917D, 1115 , and Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Calcasieu Real Estate & Oil Co., , 170 So.
C. I. T. Corporation v. Lytle 185 So. 115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
This statute does not appear to be restrictive of the provisions of the 1926 act, which it supercedes, but, as expressed by Chief Justice O’Niell in Shell Petroleum Corp’n v. Calcasieu Real Estate & Oil Co., , 170 So.
Louisiana Canal Co. v. Heyd 181 So. 439 La. 1938
We approved the holding in the Eaton Case, but our reasons for doing so are explained at length in the case of Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Calcasieu Real Estate & Oil Co., , 170 So.
D. H. Holmes Co. v. Morris 177 So. 417 La. 1937
556, 558 , a declaration to the effect that, under Act No. 132 of 1926, which was the predecessor of Act No. 283 of 1928, married i women had the same capacity to contract debts as if they were single, but that they could not “bind the community, or interfere with the husband’s rights as head and master thereof.” And in Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Calcasieu Real Estate & Oil Co., , 170 So.