Legal Opinion

Eason Oil Company v. Uhls

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided January 8, 1974No. 45240-45243PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DOOLIN, Justice.

The issue for determination in these four cases is whether the Appellee’s leasehold rights to develop for oil and gas have been improperly restricted by the ordinances of the City of Oklahoma City.

Appellee (hereinafter referred to as “Eason”) sought permission to drill oil and gas wells, or a variance, in an area of Oklahoma City which had been designated as a part of the “non-drilling” zone of that city. Subsequent to the annexation of that area by Oklahoma City and the consequential classification of that area as a non-drilling zone, Eason acquired sufficient leases to seek…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. City of North Muskegon v. MillerMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Beveridge v. Harper & Turner Oil TrustSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934
  4. In Re DawsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
  5. Anderson-Kerr, Inc. v. Van MeterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1933

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Bankoff v. Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1994
  2. Vinson v. MedleySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1987
  3. Davis v. BF GoodrichSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
  4. Davis v. BF GoodrichSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
  5. TEXAS CTY. IRRIGATION & WATER RES. ASS'N v. DunnettSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1974

1 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