Case Law Southern Ute Indian Tribe v. Amoco Production Co.

Southern Ute Indian Tribe v. Amoco Production Co.

Document Cited Authorities (43) Cited in (34) Related

Thomas H. Shipps, Maynes, Bradford, Shipps & Sheftel, Durango, Colorado (Scott B. McElroy and Alice E. Walker, Greene, Meyer & McElroy, P.C., Boulder, Colorado, and Michael T. McConnell, Long & Jaudon, Denver, Colorado, with him on the briefs), for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Charles L. Kaiser, Davis, Graham & Stubbs L.L.P., Denver, Colorado (Anthony J. Shaheen and Ezekiel J. Williams, Davis, Graham & Stubbs L.L.P., Denver, Colorado, and David E. Brody, Amoco Production Company, Denver, Colorado, with him on the brief), for Amoco Production Company, Defendant-Appellee.

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, PORFILIO, ANDERSON, TACHA, BALDOCK, KELLY, HENRY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges, and MCKAY, Senior Circuit Judge. *

SEYMOUR, Chief Judge.

OPINION ON REHEARING EN BANC

This case arose from the relatively recent development of technology that has made coal bed methane (CBM) commercially valuable. The Southern Ute Indian Tribe (the Tribe) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants Amoco Production Company and others on the Tribe's claim to ownership of coal bed methane contained in coal acquired by the Tribe as successor in interest to a statutory reservation of coal to the United States. The Tribe also appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Secretary of the Interior, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of the Interior's subordinate agencies (the federal defendants) on the Tribe's claim of breach of fiduciary duty. A panel of this court reversed the district court on the issue of CBM ownership and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its decision. See Southern Ute Indian Tribe v. Amoco Prod. Co., 119 F.3d 816 (10th Cir.1997). Amoco requested rehearing en banc which we granted in part as set out below.

I.

In 1991, the Tribe brought suit against Amoco Production Company, other oil companies, and individual oil and gas lessees and lessors (the Amoco defendants) who asserted ownership interests in CBM contained in coal owned by the Tribe. In its First Amended Complaint, the Tribe claimed ownership of CBM and asserted that various Amoco defendants, by exploring for and extracting CBM under oil and gas leases, had among other things: 1) trespassed on Tribal lands; 2) trespassed on Tribal coal; 3) converted Tribal coal; 4) failed to pay severance tax to the Tribe; and 5) in collusion with State of Colorado officials, deprived the Tribe of federally guaranteed rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Tribe sought a variety of remedies including: 1) a declaratory judgment vesting in the Tribe ownership of CBM and other substances contained in Tribal coal; 2) a declaratory judgment that Tribal consent is required for CBM extraction; 3) an order quieting title to CBM in the Tribe; 4) injunctive relief to prevent continued exploration and production of CBM without Tribal consent; 5) damages for present and future injuries to coal, for extraction of CBM, for conversion of coal, for civil rights violations, and for failure to pay severance taxes; 6) title to all exploration and production facilities on Tribal lands which, if removed, would interrupt production of CBM; and 7) costs and attorney's fees.

The Tribe also sued the federal defendants in their capacities as trustees for the Tribe. The Tribe claimed that the federal defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Tribe by allowing exploration and extraction of CBM under oil and gas leases. The Tribe sought a declaratory judgment on the breach of fiduciary duty issue, and sought injunctive relief to prevent the federal defendants from issuing permits to explore for and extract CBM under oil and gas leases or from otherwise acquiescing in the derogation of the Tribe's alleged ownership interest in CBM.

Two issues were identified as fundamental to the resolution of all claims against the...

5 cases
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit – 1999
Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 96-8083
"...to the statute.' ") (alterations in original) (quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844, 104 S.Ct. 2778), aff'd en banc on other grounds, 151 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir.1998). "[N]o deference is warranted if the interpretation is inconsistent with the legislative intent reflected in the language and struc..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit – 1998
Leonhardt v. Western Sugar Co.
"...Western Sugar is a handler. 2 " 'In interpreting statutes, we begin with the relevant language.' " Southern Ute Indian Tribe v. Amoco Prod. Co., 151 F.3d 1251, 1257 (10th Cir.1998) (en banc) (quoting Aulston v. United States, 915 F.2d 584, 589 (10th Cir.1990)). If congressional will " 'has ..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit – 1998
Public Lands Council v. Babbitt
"...to the statute.' ") (alterations in original) (quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844, 104 S.Ct. 2778), aff'd en banc on other grounds, 151 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 1998). "[N]o deference is warranted if the interpretation is inconsistent with the legislative intent reflected in the language and stru..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado – 1999
U.S. v. Moon Lake Electric Ass'n, Inc.
"...itself. United States v. James, 478 U.S. 597, 604, 106 S.Ct. 3116, 92 L.Ed.2d 483 (1986); Southern Ute Indian Tribe v. Amoco Production Co., 151 F.3d 1251, 1257 (10th Cir.1998) (en banc); F. Frankfurter. Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes 16 (1947) ("Though we may not end with the ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico – 2017
Steven J. Abraham, & H Ltd. v. WPX Energy Prod., LLC
"...a number of substantive holdings and ruling that an intervention was timely and proper); S. Ute Indian Tribe v. Amoco Prod. Co., 151 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 1998)(en banc)(Seymour, C.J.)(holding that Indian tribes that owned mineral rights in coal also owned the rights to the accompanying coal..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
4 books and journal articles
Document | Natural Resources and Environmental Administrative Law and Procedure II (FNREL)
CHALLENGING AGENCY ACTION AND INACTION: THE PROBLEM OF LEADING A HORSE TO WATER
"...Southern Ute Tribe, 526 U.S. 865, 119 S. Ct. 1719, 1725 (1999) (citing Leo Sheep Co. v. United States, 440 U.S. 668, 682 (1980)). [136] .151 F.3d 1251, 1255 (10%gth%g Cir. 1998) (en banc), rev'd 119 S.Ct. 1719 (1999). [137] .American Trucking Ass'n. v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (p..."
Document | Natural Resources & Environmental Administrative Law and Procedure (FNREL)
CHAPTER 11 CHALLENGING AGENCY ACTION AND INACTION: THE PROBLEM OF LEADING A HORSE TO WATER
"...Ute Tribe, ___ U.S.___, 119 S. Ct. 1719, 1725 (1999) (citing Leo Sheep Co. v. United States, 440 U.S. 668, 682 (1980)). [136] 136. 151 F.3d 1251, 1255 (10 Cir. 1998) (en banc), rev'd 119 S.Ct. 1719 (1999). [137] American Trucking Ass'n. v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (petition for r..."
Document | Núm. 17-3, March 2001
Amoco Production Company v. Southern Ute Indian Tribe: a Final Resolution to the Battle Over Ownership of Coalbed Methane Gas?
"...Trib. Bus. News, June 27, 1999, available at 1999 WL 17353578. [4]. 526 U.S. 865 (1999). [5]. S. Ute Indian Tribe v. Amoco Prod. Co., 151 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 1998) (en banc). [6]. See Amoco Prod. Co. v. S. Ute Indian Tribe, 526 U.S. 865 (1999). [7]. See Court Favors Amoco in Coalbed Methan..."
Document | Natural Resources Development and Environmental Regulation in Indian Country (FNREL)
LITIGATION DEVELOPMENTS 1998-99
"...§ 797(e). [16] 1999 WL 126680 (Fed. Cl. 1999). [17] 146 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1998). [18] 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a). [19] 5 U.S.C. § 706. [20] 151 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 1998) (en banc), cert. granted, 119 S.Ct. 899 (1999), order amended, 119 S.Ct. 921 (1999). In the order amending the granting of c..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 books and journal articles
Document | Natural Resources and Environmental Administrative Law and Procedure II (FNREL)
CHALLENGING AGENCY ACTION AND INACTION: THE PROBLEM OF LEADING A HORSE TO WATER
"...Southern Ute Tribe, 526 U.S. 865, 119 S. Ct. 1719, 1725 (1999) (citing Leo Sheep Co. v. United States, 440 U.S. 668, 682 (1980)). [136] .151 F.3d 1251, 1255 (10%gth%g Cir. 1998) (en banc), rev'd 119 S.Ct. 1719 (1999). [137] .American Trucking Ass'n. v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (p..."
Document | Natural Resources & Environmental Administrative Law and Procedure (FNREL)
CHAPTER 11 CHALLENGING AGENCY ACTION AND INACTION: THE PROBLEM OF LEADING A HORSE TO WATER
"...Ute Tribe, ___ U.S.___, 119 S. Ct. 1719, 1725 (1999) (citing Leo Sheep Co. v. United States, 440 U.S. 668, 682 (1980)). [136] 136. 151 F.3d 1251, 1255 (10 Cir. 1998) (en banc), rev'd 119 S.Ct. 1719 (1999). [137] American Trucking Ass'n. v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (petition for r..."
Document | Núm. 17-3, March 2001
Amoco Production Company v. Southern Ute Indian Tribe: a Final Resolution to the Battle Over Ownership of Coalbed Methane Gas?
"...Trib. Bus. News, June 27, 1999, available at 1999 WL 17353578. [4]. 526 U.S. 865 (1999). [5]. S. Ute Indian Tribe v. Amoco Prod. Co., 151 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 1998) (en banc). [6]. See Amoco Prod. Co. v. S. Ute Indian Tribe, 526 U.S. 865 (1999). [7]. See Court Favors Amoco in Coalbed Methan..."
Document | Natural Resources Development and Environmental Regulation in Indian Country (FNREL)
LITIGATION DEVELOPMENTS 1998-99
"...§ 797(e). [16] 1999 WL 126680 (Fed. Cl. 1999). [17] 146 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1998). [18] 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a). [19] 5 U.S.C. § 706. [20] 151 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 1998) (en banc), cert. granted, 119 S.Ct. 899 (1999), order amended, 119 S.Ct. 921 (1999). In the order amending the granting of c..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit – 1999
Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 96-8083
"...to the statute.' ") (alterations in original) (quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844, 104 S.Ct. 2778), aff'd en banc on other grounds, 151 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir.1998). "[N]o deference is warranted if the interpretation is inconsistent with the legislative intent reflected in the language and struc..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit – 1998
Leonhardt v. Western Sugar Co.
"...Western Sugar is a handler. 2 " 'In interpreting statutes, we begin with the relevant language.' " Southern Ute Indian Tribe v. Amoco Prod. Co., 151 F.3d 1251, 1257 (10th Cir.1998) (en banc) (quoting Aulston v. United States, 915 F.2d 584, 589 (10th Cir.1990)). If congressional will " 'has ..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit – 1998
Public Lands Council v. Babbitt
"...to the statute.' ") (alterations in original) (quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844, 104 S.Ct. 2778), aff'd en banc on other grounds, 151 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 1998). "[N]o deference is warranted if the interpretation is inconsistent with the legislative intent reflected in the language and stru..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado – 1999
U.S. v. Moon Lake Electric Ass'n, Inc.
"...itself. United States v. James, 478 U.S. 597, 604, 106 S.Ct. 3116, 92 L.Ed.2d 483 (1986); Southern Ute Indian Tribe v. Amoco Production Co., 151 F.3d 1251, 1257 (10th Cir.1998) (en banc); F. Frankfurter. Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes 16 (1947) ("Though we may not end with the ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico – 2017
Steven J. Abraham, & H Ltd. v. WPX Energy Prod., LLC
"...a number of substantive holdings and ruling that an intervention was timely and proper); S. Ute Indian Tribe v. Amoco Prod. Co., 151 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 1998)(en banc)(Seymour, C.J.)(holding that Indian tribes that owned mineral rights in coal also owned the rights to the accompanying coal..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex