Legal Opinion
Williams v. Continental Oil Co.
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Decided February 16, 1953No. Civ. No. 5149PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WALLACE, District Judge.
The plaintiffs bring this action to recover for oil allegedly taken in the past and still being taken from the plaintiffs’ land by a well of defendant’s surfaced adjacent to plaintiffs’ land but allegedly off-vertical to *59the extent that it is bottomed on the plaintiffs’ property.
The well is the Continental Oil Company’s Munah Cosar Well No. 1; it is located on the surface at a point approximately 333 feet west and 330 feet north of the southwest corner of plaintiffs’ 40 acres.
The plaintiffs filed a motion under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure1 and in it…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Alltmont v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
- Hastings Oil Co. v. Texas Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1950
- Montana Co. v. St. Louis Mining & Milling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Reynolds v. United States. Brauner v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1951
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Williams v. Continental Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1954
- State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. District Court of the First Judicial DistrictMontana Supreme Court · 1966
- Ark. State Highway Commission v. StanleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1962
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. City of Redondo BeachCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- Williams v. Continental Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1954