Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Vincent v. Bullock, 187 So. 35.

57 citing documents.

Glassell Producing Co. v. Naquin 224 So. 3d 56 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
In the seminal case, , 187 So.
Cohort Ener. v. Caddo-Bossier Parishes Port 852 So. 2d 1174 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Frey v. Amoco Production Co. 603 So. 2d 166 La. 1992
Ultramar Oil & Gas Ltd. v. Fournet 598 So. 2d 645 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Horton v. Mobley 578 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
Shell Oil Co. v. Pitman 476 So. 2d 1031 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Harris v. Galloway 348 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
Montgomery v. Breaux 338 So. 2d 314 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
The acknowledgment must constitute an intentional act on the part of the possessor and not result from a negligent or unintentional act or piece of phraseology, , 187 So.
Wurzlow v. Placid Oil Company 279 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Jastremski v. Robichaux 255 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
The acknowledgment must constitute an intentional act on the part of the possessor and not result from a negligent or unintentional act or piece of phraseology, , 187 So.
Marathon Ins. Co. v. Warner 244 So. 2d 353 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1971
Whitehall Oil Company v. Heard 197 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
Uzee v. Bollinger 178 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Though not with equal clarity, , 187 So.
Armour v. Smith 170 So. 2d 347 La. 1964
Frey v. Miller 165 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
"(T)he right to search and explore, which belongs to the owner of the servitude, is not given to the royalty owner; that the latter must await such time as the land has been developed, and his right is restricted to a sharing in production if and when it is obtained by the landowner or a lessee, Vincent v. Bullock [ , 187 So.
Greene v. Carter Oil Company 152 So. 2d 611 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1963
See also Vincent, et al. v. Bullock, et al., , 187 So.
Melancon v. Cheramie 138 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Brooks v. Griggs Casing Crews, Inc. 136 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Namie v. Namie 134 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Vincent, et al. v. Bullock, et al., , 187 So.
Chicago Mill and Lumber Co. v. Ayer Timber Co. 131 So. 2d 635 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
The Supreme Court, however, in Vincent v. Bullock, 1939, , 187 So.
Phillips Petroleum Company v. Richard 127 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Roberts v. Cooper 127 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Crown Central Petroleum Corporation v. Barousse 117 So. 2d 575 La. 1960
Alexander v. Holt 116 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1959
Hinchee v. Long Bell Petroleum Co. 103 So. 2d 84 La. 1958
Gulf Refining Co. v. Hunter Co. 93 So. 2d 537 La. 1957
Brown v. Mayfield 92 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1957
Cormier v. Ferguson 92 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Le Blanc v. Haynesville Mercantile Company, Inc. 88 So. 2d 377 La. 1956
Delta Refining Co. v. Bankhead 73 So. 2d 302 La. 1954
Arkansas Fuel Oil Co. v. Gary 70 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
2 , , this court approvingly quoted the definition of the term royalty from Corpus Juris, Vol.
Horn v. Skelly Oil Co. 70 So. 2d 657 La. 1954
Barnsdall Oil Co. v. Miller 69 So. 2d 21 La. 1953
Arkansas Fuel Oil Co. v. Sanders 69 So. 2d 745 La. 1953
Ascher v. Midstates Oil Corp. 64 So. 2d 182 La. 1953
“The circumstances of the present case-are identical with those in the landmark, royalty case of Vincent v. Bullock, 1939, , 187 So.
Placid Oil Co. v. George 49 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
1, ; Goree v. Sanders, 203 La.
Union Sulphur Co. v. Andrau 47 So. 2d 38 La. 1950
The first case on that subject, namely, , 187 So.
Wier v. Glassell 44 So. 2d 882 La. 1950
2 , , this court approvingly quoted the definition of the term royalty from Corpus Juris, Vol.
Continental Oil Co. v. Landry 41 So. 2d 73 La. 1949
James v. Noble 36 So. 2d 722 La. 1948
Holcombe v. Superior Oil Co. 35 So. 2d 457 La. 1948
St. Martin Land Co. v. Pinckney 33 So. 2d 169 La. 1947
No useful purpose could be gained in considering the arguments advanced to support this contention for the reason that this Court passed on a royalty right of a , 187 So.
Union Sulphur Co. v. Lognion 33 So. 2d 178 La. 1947
Gulf Refining Co. v. Goode 32 So. 2d 904 La. 1947
Everett v. Clayton 29 So. 2d 769 La. 1947
Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Guillory 33 So. 2d 182 La. 1946
Except in a few minor particulars hereinafter mentioned, it was the same as (although described 'somewhat differently from) , 187 So.
L. P. Davis Const. Co. v. Board of Commissioners for Plaquemines Parish East Bank Levee Dist. 21 So. 2d 753 La. 1945
Baker v. Wilder 16 So. 2d 346 La. 1943
Hatch v. Morgan 12 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
Martel v. A. v. Eder Co. 6 So. 2d 335 La. 1942