# Lightcap v. Mobil Oil Corporation

> Supreme Court of Kansas · March 5, 1977 · 221 Kan. 448

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9846626

## Case

- **Full name:** Harry Lightcap and Lela Lightcap, W. I. Cutter, Fern Ellen Maupin, Richard M. Stewart, Harold Parker and Fannie M. Flower, Appellees, v. Mobil Oil Corporation, Formerly Known as Socony Mobil Oil Corporation, Inc., Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Kansas
- **Decided:** March 5, 1977
- **Citations:** 221 Kan. 448; 562 P.2d 1; 57 Oil & Gas Rep. 487; 1977 Kan. LEXIS 243
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Schroeder
- **Judges:** Fatzer, Kaul, Fromme, Prager, Miller
- **Cited by:** 86 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9846626

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that under Proceeds Royalty Provisions “royalties . . . are to be paid on amounts actually received and lawfully retained by the producer[,]” but also noting that “all sales by the producer were made at the wellhead”

## Opinion text

*486 Schroeder, J.,
concurring and dissenting:
I would affirm the trial court’s decision and identify with “Position 1” indicated in the court’s opinion. The reasons for my dissent herein are fully stated in my dissenting opinion in Waechter v. Amoco Production Co., 217 Kan. 489, 521 , 537 P. 2d 228 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9846626. Public record. Not legal advice.