Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,500+ case briefs...

Parkin v. State Corporation Commission

Kansas Supreme Court
677 P.2d 991 (1984)


An oil-and-gas operator filed an application with the Kansas State Corporation Commission (the commission) (defendant) seeking unitization of an oil pool. The commission approved the application. The application stated that the unit would be used for secondary-recovery operations. However, the unitization plan approved by the commission also stated that the operator may change its method of operation. The unit-operation agreement provided that termination could occur only upon a determination by the operator that the unitized pool could no longer be produced in paying quantities or that unit operations were no longer feasible. Oil production from the pool was minimal. Attempts at secondary recovery by water injection eventually were ceased when they did not create more production. However, the operator determined that production could still be made in paying quantities and that there was still production from the unit. The owners of the mineral interests in the unit (plaintiffs) filed an application with the commission seeking an order from the commission dissolving the unit. The commission rejected the owners’ application, stating that the operator did not agree to dissolve the unit, as was required in the unitization plan. The owners appealed the decision to state court, arguing that (1) the unit was set up for secondary-recovery operations, which were ceased; (2) the commission erred by concluding that the unit should continue until terminated by the operator; and (3) the commission improperly delegated its authority to terminate the unit to the operator. The commission argued that the operator had a contractual right to determine when to dissolve the unit. The trial court held that the utilization plan was contractual and binding upon the owners. Thus, the court ruled that the unit must continue until the operator determined otherwise. The owners appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Miller, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 409,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,500 briefs, keyed to 223 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial