DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Carter v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 36 So. 2d 26.

31 citing documents.

  • McCarthy v. Evolution Petroleum Corp. 151 So. 3d 148 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    Otherwise, as expressed in the jurisprudence, “give up the contract.” , (1948).
  • McCarthy v. Evolution Petroleum Corp. 111 So. 3d 446 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    (1948); Ferrara v. Questar Exploration and Production Co., 46,-357 (La.App.2d Cir.6/29/11), , writ denied, 2011-1926 (La.l 1/14/11), ; (La.App.
  • Ferrara v. Questar Exploration & Production Co. 70 So. 3d 974 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
  • Caskey v. Kelly Oil Co. 737 So. 2d 1257 La. 1999
  • Edmundson Bros. v. Montex Drilling Co. 731 So. 2d 1049 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
    (emphasis added), set out the standard for determining whether a lessee has fulfilled its duty to develop: The law of this state is well settled that the main consideration of a mineral lease is the development of the leased premises for minerals, and that the lessee must develop with reaso
  • Goodrich v. Exxon Co., USA 608 So. 2d 1019 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    (1948), the Supreme Court held that the question of whether a lessee has sufficiently developed the leased property is a factual issue which must be resolved by consideration of the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
  • Frey v. Amoco Production Co. 603 So. 2d 166 La. 1992
  • Taussig v. Goldking Properties Co. 495 So. 2d 1008 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    Carter v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company [ ], 36 So.2d, 26 (La.1948) .
  • Morrison v. D & L PARTNERSHIP 499 So. 2d 988 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
  • Lor, Inc. v. Martin Exploration Co. 489 So. 2d 1326 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    One such benefit is fulfillment of the mineral lessee's obligation to develop the property in a reasonable and prudent manner which Louisiana courts have long recognized, , (1948), and which is now included in the Mineral Code, LSA-R.S.
  • Allen v. Horne 478 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • Dawes v. Hale 421 So. 2d 1208 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
    (1948) and cases cited therein.
  • Frazier v. Justiss Mears Oil Co., Inc. 391 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
  • WASECO CHEMICAL & SUPPLY v. Bayou State Oil 371 So. 2d 305 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
  • Vetter v. Morrow 361 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
    This article of the Louisiana Mineral Code adopted in 1974 , (1948), as follows: The law of this state is well settled that the main consideration of a mineral lease is the development of the leased premises for minerals, and that the lessee must develop with reasonable diligence or give up the contract; further, that as to what constitutes development and reasona
  • LeJeune v. Superior Oil Company 315 So. 2d 415 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
    (1948) and all of the other cases cited by plaintiffs, there was first a discovery well and production in paying quantities from a known mineral producing formation before the courts required further development or exploration by the lessee.
  • McDonald v. Grande Corp. 214 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
  • Breaux v. Pan American Petroleum Corporation 163 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
    1015 , ; , ; Reagan v. Murphy, 235 La.
  • Saulters v. Sklar 158 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
    (1948) and numerous cases cited therein.
  • McDonald v. Grande Corporation 148 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
  • Lelong v. Richardson 126 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
    Our Supreme Court has definitely declared that the definition of adequate development is a question of fact dependent upon a consideration of the facts and circumstances established in a particular case, , , quoted in Sohio Petroleum Company v. Miller, 237 La.
  • Schnitt v. Woods 125 So. 2d 451 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    254 , ; , , and Matheson et al. v. Placid Oil Co. et al., 212 La.
  • Breaux v. Magnolia Petroleum Co. 121 So. 2d 280 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    595 ; Carter v.Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., , ; Taylor v. Kimbell, 219 La.
  • Sohio Petroleum Co. v. Millers 112 So. 2d 695 La. 1959
    this court said: “The law of this state is well settled that the main consideration of a mineral lease is the development of the leased premises for minerals, and that the lessee must develop with reasonable diligence or give up the contract; further, that as to what constitutes development and rea
  • Sohio Petroleum Company v. Miller 112 So. 2d 695 La. 1959
    this court said: "The law of this state is well settled that the main consideration of a mineral lease is the development of the leased premises for minerals, and that the lessee must develop with reasonable diligence or give up the contract; further, that as to what constitutes development and rea
  • Middleton v. California Company 112 So. 2d 704 La. 1959
    Eota Realty Company, Inc. v. Carter Oil Company et al., 225 La.
  • Cameron v. Reserve Insurance Company 111 So. 2d 336 La. 1959
    429 ; , ; Sheeks v. McCain-Richards, Inc., 226 La.
  • Reagan v. Murphy 105 So. 2d 210 La. 1958
    473 ; , and Wier v. Grubb, 228 La.
  • Wier v. Grubb 82 So. 2d 1 La. 1955
    473 ; , ; Merrill, The Law Relating to Covenants Implied in Oil and Gas Leases, 2d Ed., sec.
  • Nunley v. Shell Oil Company 76 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
    Plaintiff relies upon the case of Carter, v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company, , .
  • Eota Realty Co. v. Carter Oil Co. 74 So. 2d 30 La. 1954
    formed them.” Article 1963 of the LSA-Civil Code states: “When the intent of the parties is evident and lawful, neither equity nor usage can be resorted to, in order to enlarge or restrain that intent, nor can any law operate to that effect, unless it be some prohibition or other provision, which the parties had no right to modify or renounce.” , , this Court considered a similar oil, gas and mineral lease and upheld its cancellation in part.