Dodson v. Corporation Commission

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Dodson v. Corporation Commission

1933 OK 455, 25 P.2d 638, 165 Okla. 210, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 297

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 12, 1933

Docket24131

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1933 OK 455 (Dodson v. Corporation Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dodson v. Corporation Commission, 1933 OK 455, 25 P.2d 638, 165 Okla. 210, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 297 (Okla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

BUSBY, J.

This is a companion case to cause No. 24132, Oils Incorporated v. Corporation Commission et al., this date decided. (165 Okla. 202, 25 P. (2d) 703.) The same property is involved as well as the ame period of production. The cases differ only in that the plaintiffs in error in this case are owners of fractional interests in and to the % working interest covered by the lease of the producing property involved, whereas, in cause No. 24132 the plaintiff in error was the operator. The legal questions involved which are material to a determination of the issues are identical. The causes have been considered together in this court, and the ultimate rights of the parties in this case have been determined in accordance with the views expressed in the opinion in cause No. 24132.

The opinion in cause No. 24132 is therefore adopted as the opinion in this case, and this cause is reversed and remanded, with directions to proceed in a manner not inconsistent with the views announced.

RILEY, C. J., OÜLLISON, V. C. J., and SWINDALL, ANDREWS, McNEILL, OSBORN, BAYLESS, and WELCH, JL, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BUSBY, J.

This is a companion case to cause No. 24132, Oils Incorporated v. Corporation Commission et al., this date decided. (165 Okla. 202, 25 P. (2d) 703.) The same property is involved as well as the ame period of production. The cases differ only in that the plaintiffs in error in this case are owners of fractional interests in and to the % working interest covered by the lease of the producing property involved, whereas, in cause No. 24132 the plaintiff in error was the operator. The legal questions involved which are material to a determination of the issues are identical. The causes have been considered together in this court, and the ultimate rights of the parties in this case have been determined in accordance with the views expressed in the opinion in cause No. 24132.

The opinion in cause No. 24132 is therefore adopted as the opinion in this case, and this cause is reversed and remanded, with directions to proceed in a manner not inconsistent with the views announced.

RILEY, C. J., OÜLLISON, V. C. J., and SWINDALL, ANDREWS, McNEILL, OSBORN, BAYLESS, and WELCH, JL, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1933 OK 455, 25 P.2d 638, 165 Okla. 210, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dodson-v-corporation-commission-okla-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack