Legal Opinion

Barrett v. Dorr

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided December 2, 1965No. 20,104PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPrime, C. J.

— Before proceeding to a discussion of this matter on the merits, we note that the appellees have included in their answer brief a Motion to Dismiss. This motion is not properly presented under Rule 2-12 of the Supreme Court in any particular and is hereby denied.

This is an action by appellants against appellees to quiet title to certain real estate and to have an oil and gas lease cancelled because of failure to operate and produce an oil well on said property.

The lease was executed by a prior owner of the land and subsequently a producing well was drilled on the property. By reason of…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Waggoner Estate v. Sigler Oil Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Pokraka v. Lummus Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Miller, Etc. v. Ortman, Etc.Indiana Supreme Court · 1956
  4. Watson v. RochmillTexas Supreme Court · 1941
  5. HINDS, ETC. v. McNAIRIndiana Supreme Court · 1955

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Wagner v. SmithOhio Court of Appeals · 1982
  2. Barr v. Sun Exploration Co., Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1982
  3. RHDK Oil & Gas, L.L.C. v. DyeOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
  4. Plymouth Fertilizer Co., Inc. v. BalmerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1986
  5. Cedar Farm, Harrison County, Inc. v. Louisville Gas & Electric Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2011

7 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