Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hunter Co. v. Shell Oil Co., 31 So. 2d 10.

27 citing documents.

Questar Exploration & Production Co. v. Woodard Villa, Inc. 123 So. 3d 734 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
31:114 ("operations on the land burdened by the lease or land unitized therewith sufficient to maintain the lease according to its terms will continue it in force as to the entirety of the land burdened”); , (1947); Patrick Martin, Law of Pooling & Unitization, 3 ed. § 9.01, p. 9-4.
Peironnet v. Matador Resources Co. 103 So. 3d 445 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Will-Drill Resources, Inc. v. Huggs Inc. 738 So. 2d 1196 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
[3] , (1947) and LeBlanc v. Danciger Oil & Refining Co., 218 La.
Menoah Petroleum, Inc. v. McKinney 545 So. 2d 1216 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Mathews v. Goodrich Oil Co. 471 So. 2d 938 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
(1947), Le Blanc v. Danciger Oil & Refining Co., 218 La.
Roseberry v. Louisiana Land & Exploration Co. 470 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
(1947) and LeBlanc v. Danciger Oil & Refining Co., 218 La.
Bernard v. Marathon Oil Co. 381 So. 2d 1286 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Hunter Co. v. Shell Oil Company, [ ], LeBlanc v. Danciger Oil & Refining Co., [ 218 La.
Fremaux v. Buie 212 So. 2d 148 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
(1947) and cases cited therein.)
Sellers v. Continental Oil Company 168 So. 2d 435 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
The trial judge was of the opinion that the decision in the case of Hunter Co. v. Shell Oil Company, Inc., , , requires that if a mineral lease is to be cancelled, it must be cancelled in its entirety.
Frey v. Miller 165 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
`893, , the Supreme Court held that the operations on a Commissioner's unit served to maintain the entire lease in force.
Landry v. Flaitz 157 So. 2d 892 La. 1963
463 , (1950) ; , (1947); Hardy v. Union Producing Co., 207 La.
Kimbrough v. Atlantic Refining Co. 152 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
341 , ; , ; Landry v. Flaitz, La.App., .
Odom v. Union Producing Company 129 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
wherein it was held that, where an oil, gas and mineral lease covers land both within and without an integrated, consolidated, and force-pooled unit established by the Commissioner of Conservation during the primary term of the lease, and, where production in paying quantities is secured, while the lea
Prestridge v. Humble Oil & Refining Company 131 So. 2d 810 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
The fact of the matter is that prescription did not run as to this lease, Reagan v. Murphy, supra; the lease obligation is indivisible in its very nature, Hunter Co., , ; and consequently drilling on any part of the lease continued the lease in effect as to all of the lands included within the leased premises.
Simmons v. Pure Oil Company 124 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Monsanto Chemical Co. v. Southern Natural Gas Co. 102 So. 2d 223 La. 1958
370 , ; , ; Hunter Co. v. Vaughn, 217 La.
Richard v. Sohio Petroleum Co. 101 So. 2d 676 La. 1958
LeBlanc v. Danciger Oil & Refining Co., 218 La.
Delatte v. Woods 94 So. 2d 281 La. 1957
In the recent case of Hunter Co., Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., Inc., , , the property therein involved was covered by two mineral leases, both dated July 26, 1935, for a primary term of ten years.
Brown v. Mayfield 92 So. 2d 762 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1957
Pointing out that there were numerous expressions found in our jurisprudence maintaining the indivisibility of a , ; LeBlanc v. Danciger Oil & Refining Co., 218 La.
Boddie v. Drewett 87 So. 2d 516 La. 1956
561 , ; , ; Hunter Co., Inc., v. Vaughn, 217 La.
Jumonville Pipe & MacHinery Co. v. Federal Land Bank 87 So. 2d 721 La. 1956
The case of Hunter Co., Inc., v. Shell Oil Co., Inc., , , relied on by the defendants, is not applicable.
Childs v. Washington 87 So. 2d 111 La. 1956
Two of the cases relied on by the defendants, and upon which the trial judge based his conclusions, , , and Le Blanc v. Danciger Oil & Refining Co., 218 La.
Nunley v. Shell Oil Company 76 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
on of no cause and no right of action, we unreservedly concede *113 the correctness of counsel's argument that the Supreme Court of our state has established the general rule that an oil and gas lease is an indivisible obligation, with respect to which a lessor has no right to demand the forfeiture and cancellation of a part of the leased premises; Hunter Company, Inc. v. Shell Oil Company, Inc., , , and cases therein cited.
Eota Realty Co. v. Carter Oil Co. 74 So. 2d 30 La. 1954
acts from which such a conclusion can be drawn and particularly when considered in the light of his allegations that two producing wells have been drilled ■on the property since the termination of the primary term of the lease, states no cause of action; and since petitioner fails to allege he placed the lessee in default * * * his petition states no right of action.” , , is used as an authority by defendants.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Southwest Natural Production Co. 60 So. 2d 9 La. 1952
97, ; , ; Hardy v. Union Producing Co., 207 La.
Everett v. Phillips Petroleum Co. 51 So. 2d 87 La. 1950
370 , ; , ; Hunter Co. v. Vaughn, 217 La.
Le Blanc v. Danciger Oil & Refining Co. 49 So. 2d 855 La. 1950
The holding of this court in the recent case of Hunter Company v. Shell Oil Company, Inc, , , where a factual situation similar to that *470 in the case under consideration existed— which holding was to the effect that production in paying quantities during the primary term of a mineral lease on a portion of an integrated pooling unit established by the Commissioner of Conservation, althoug