Legal Opinion

Wolfe v. Stanford

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided January 19, 1937No. 23955PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBusby, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Hughes county granting a partition of lands subject to oil, gas, and mineral rights and refusing to grant the same relief in connection with such rights. In their brief the parties use the term “surface rights” to refer to that portion of the fed remaining after elimination of the oil, gas, and mineral rights. The term is legally inaccurate, but convenient. In this opinion we shall use it in the same sense for the sake of brevity. For the same reason we shall employ the terms “oil rights” and “royalty” in a general sense to include…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Earp v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
  2. Hill v. RenoIllinois Supreme Court · 1883
  3. Henderson v. ChesleyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1925
  4. Cuff v. KosloskySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933
  5. Moody v. WagnerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Schnitt v. McKellarSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1968
  2. De Mik v. CargillSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1971
  3. Condrey v. CondreySupreme Court of Florida · 1957
  4. Daughtrey v. DaughtreyMississippi Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Holland v. ShafferSupreme Court of Kansas · 1947

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API