DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana v. Futral, 15 So. 2d 65.

34 citing documents.

  • Succession of Crute v. Crute 226 So. 3d 1161 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    v. Futral, , at 75 [(1943)].
  • Lewis v. Townsend 108 So. 3d 184 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
  • Cohort Ener. v. Caddo-Bossier Parishes Port 852 So. 2d 1174 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    160 , (1951); , (1943); Palmer Corp. of Louisiana v. Moore, 171 La.
  • Lejano v. Bandak 705 So. 2d 158 La. 1998
    (1943), citing Rodgers v. S.H.
  • Horton v. Mobley 578 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    160 , (1951); , (1943); Arent v. Hunter, supra; Palmer Corp. of Louisiana v. Moore, 171 La.
  • Lulich v. Robin 466 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Chappuis 239 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
  • Prentice v. Amax Petroleum Corporation 220 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
  • Campo v. LaNasa 173 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
    250 , ; , ; Rodgers v. S. H. Bolinger Co., 149 La.
  • Walker v. Jim Austin Motor Company 162 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
  • Evangeline Refining Co. v. Nunez 153 So. 2d 886 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    As noted by the trial judge, , cited Rodgers v. S. H. Bolinger Co., 149 La.
  • Price v. Taylor 139 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
  • Hulin v. Hale 137 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
  • Melancon v. Cheramie 138 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
    involving mineral right with proviso similar to the present and sold subject to pre-existing lease.
  • Carter Oil Company v. King 134 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
    688 ; Standard Oil Company of Louisiana v. Futral et al., 1943, , ; Weber v. H. G. Hill Stores, Inc., 1946, 210 La.
  • Phillips Petroleum Company v. Richard 127 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    709 , , , , Per Curiam on rehearing, , wherein for purposes of determining whether prescription had run it was necessary for the Supreme Court to determine whether fractional interests in minerals lying under the respective tracts, created by sale or reservation, were either mineral or royalty rights.
  • Leiter Minerals, Inc. v. California Co. 126 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1961
    v. Futral, , ; Haynes v. King, 219 La.
  • Esso Standard Oil Co. v. George Gardiner Green 121 So. 2d 84 La. 1960
    we showed that Act 123 of 1922, which originally authorized concursus proceedings, contained no provision for payment of costs; and we concluded that, therefore, we should exercise the general power vested in us by Act 229 of 1910 and order payment of costs on an equitable basis.
  • Distinguished Cockerham v. Aime 110 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    1327 , , , relied upon by defendant as being decisive of the issue of antecedent agreement, are clearly and easily distinguishable from the case at bar.
  • Zemurray v. Boe 105 So. 2d 243 La. 1958
    977, ; , ; cf., Rudman v. Dupuis, 206 La.
  • Cormier v. Ferguson 92 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    709 , , , , Per Curiam on rehearing, , wherein for purposes of determining whether prescription had run it was necessary for the Supreme Court to determine whether fractional interests in minerals lying under the respective tracts, created by sale or reservation, were either mineral or royalty rights.
  • Elysian Homes, Inc. v. Davis 90 So. 2d 791 La. 1956
  • Smith v. Anisman 85 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
    536 , ; Standard Oil Company of Louisiana v. Futral, 1943, , ; Mays v. Hansbro, 1953, 222 La.
  • CARDOS EX REL. CARDOS v. Cristadoro 84 So. 2d 606 La. 1955
    this court in quoting from an earlier case stated: “In Rodgers v. S. H. Bolinger Co., 149 La.
  • Cotton v. Washburn 84 So. 2d 208 La. 1955
    770 , ; , ; Magee v. Booty, La.App., .
  • Grayson v. Lyons, Prentiss & McCord 76 So. 2d 531 La. 1954
    one be necessary to reach the grounds, and insist that it be not removed and access to the lands barred.” Even though the sale by Lawrence to Suggett and McElreath did not mention the right of exploration, this Court has held: “ * * * the sale of an interest in minerals or mineral rights by a landowner necessarily carries with it the right to explore, * * , .
  • Mays v. Hansbro 64 So. 2d 232 La. 1953
  • Mays v. Hansbro 64 So. 2d 232 La. 1953
  • Poor v. Hemenway 60 So. 2d 310 La. 1952
    29 ; , ; White v. Myane, 10 La.App.
  • Aucoin v. Marcel 38 So. 2d 81 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
  • St. Martin Land Co. v. Pinckney 33 So. 2d 169 La. 1947
    *309 Moreover, , , wherein a person by the name of Van Geffen had acquired a mineral interest in certain lands from Futral in his own name and afterwards had addressed a letter to other parties showing they had an interest in the minerals that he had purchased from Futral, this Court had this to say: “Since Van Geffe
  • Weber v. H. G. Hill Stores, Inc. 29 So. 2d 33 La. 1946
  • Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Guillory 33 So. 2d 182 La. 1946
    For us to rule otherwise, we would he compelled to overrule a , , and which was based on a substantially identical factual situation.
  • Byrd v. Forgotson 34 So. 2d 777 La. 1945