Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
O'NEILL v. American Quasar Petroleum Co.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided January 11, 1980No. 50741Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partOpala, Justice
Our review is sought of an order by the Corporation Commission [commission] pooling a 640-acre spacing unit for oil and gas development. Three couples [Hulsizers, Mitchells and Kennedys]-all overriding royalty owners-appear here as appellants. Two of them [Mitchells and Kennedys] also have a conversion option to a working interest after payout of well costs. All interests before us underlie a 77.31-aere tract in the pooled unit. The oil-and-gas lessee of that tract [0’Neill]-one of the original appellants-was allowed to dismiss his appeal.
The order under review extends to the lessee, as well…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Patterson v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1938
- Samuel G. Whitaker and Elizabeth Whitaker v. Texaco Inc. (Formerly Named the Texas Company), a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1960
- Superior Oil Co. v. Oklahoma Corporation CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1952
- Layton v. Pan American Petroleum CorporationSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1963
- L. S. Youngblood and M. L. McLain v. Hughes SeewaldCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1962
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.