Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Nilsen v. Tenneco Oil Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided July 21, 1980No. 48399Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDoolin, Justice

This is a case of first impression.

I concur with the conclusion of the majority as to non-severed mineral interests. I cannot agree with the majority in regard to its treatment of severed mineral estates.

Oklahoma, it is true, has adopted the common law doctrine of riparian rights (12 O.S.1971 § 2). Riparian in its strict sense is descriptive of the right attaching or belonging to land bordering, touching, or adjacent to a stream. Thus, lands are riparian that lie along or border a stream, and littoral if bounded by a sea, tidal water or a considerable body of water. It is fundamental that…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1882
  2. Reno Smelting, Milling & Reduction Works v. StevensonNevada Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Fowler v. WoodSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
  4. Clark v. AllamanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1905
  5. Sautbine v. KellerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1966

13 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