Union Oil Company of California v. Jackson

5 Citing cases

  1. B&B Buckles Props. v. Oil Producers Inc. of Kan.

    520 P.3d 392 (Okla. Civ. App. 2021)

    Factors courts have considered include "[p]robable costs of drilling, equipping and operating the well or wells," "that oil or gas would probably have been discovered thereon," and that "the amount thereof would probably have been sufficient to have yielded a reasonable profit upon the total outlay." Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Jackson, 1971 OK 128, ¶ 22, 489 P.2d 1073. Profitability, or expectation of profit, is an essential element of the prudent operator standard.

  2. Bank of Oklahoma, N.A. v. Krown Systems

    53 P.3d 924 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002)   Cited 3 times
    Applying § 2004(C)(c) to service of garnishment summons on corporation

    Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Clayton v. Fleming Cos.,2000 OK 20, ¶ 11,1 P.3d 981, 984. If we determine the court had equitable power, then we "must examine the entire record and weigh the evidence to determine whether the judgment is against the clear weight of evidence, or contrary to law or established principles of equity." Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Jackson,1971 OK 128, ¶ 6, 489 P.2d 1073, 1074. If we determine that the trial court's judgment in an equity case was in error, we may "render or cause to be rendered the judgment that should have been rendered by the trial court." Sinclair Oil Gas Co. v. Bishop,1967 OK 167, ¶ 0, 441 P.2d 436, 439 (syl. no. 9 by the court).

  3. Sonat Exploration Co. v. Superior Oil Co.

    710 P.2d 221 (Wyo. 1985)   Cited 4 times

    Oklahoma places the original burden upon the lessor to establish breach of the implied covenant of development. Union Oil Company of California v. Jackson, Okla., 489 P.2d 1073 (1971). However, in Oklahoma, where there is an unreasonable time lapse between the last well drilled and action to have the lease cancelled, the burden shifts and the lessor is relieved of the burden of proving that the other wells would be profitable. Lyons v. Robson, Okla., 330 P.2d 593, 596 (1958).

  4. West v. Sun Oil Company

    490 P.2d 1073 (Okla. 1971)

    In several cases, this Court has disapproved cancellation when the lessee demonstrated a willingness to investigate or test for other producing formations. Shell Oil Co. v. Howell, 208 Okla. 598, 258 P.2d 661 (1953); Skelly Oil Co. v. Boles, 193 Okla. 308, 142 P.2d 969 (1943); Ferguson v. Gulf Oil Corp., 192 Okla. 355, 137 P.2d 940 (1943); Union Oil Co. v. Jackson, Okla., 489 P.2d 1073, decided October 19, 1971. In both Howell and Boles, the lessees had expended money on preliminary investigation of deeper horizons and had conducted negotiations for sharing the cost of deep test wells with other lessees in the area.

  5. Vincent v. Tideway Oil Programs, Inc.

    620 P.2d 910 (Okla. Civ. App. 1980)   Cited 2 times

    Neither do we find that the evidence substantiates forfeiture for failure to develop. The rules applicable to cancellation for breach of the implied covenants to develop were stated by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Union Oil Co. v. Jackson, Okla., 489 P.2d 1073, 1077, as follows: Settled rules controlling actions for cancellation of oil and gas leases for failure to develop have been stated many times.