Southern Ute Indian Tribe v. Amoco Production Co.
| Decision Date | 20 July 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-1579,94-1579 |
| Citation | 151 F.3d 1251 |
| Parties | 98 CJ C.A.R. 3952 SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN TRIBE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY; Shirley K. Adams; Henry Ashworth; Carla M. Aspaas; Eric K. Aspaas; Helen Ruth Aspaas; Laurabelle Aspaas; Leta M. Adkins; Rita M. Adkins; Maxwell C. Anderson; Earl A. Barker; Maurice C. Breen, named as: Heirs of Maurice C. Breen, deceased; Horace F. Buchanan, named as: the Heirs of Horace Buchanan, deceased; George A. Bugg; Carbone Investment Company; Jack Carmack; Rowland Carmack; Joseph C. Ciancio; William Kemp Clark; Colorado National Bank, George Veto Trust; Colorado National Bank of Longmont, conservator Gladys N. Frazzini; Dorothy A. Corgin; Kelly Cox, named as: the Heirs of Kelly Cox, deceased; A.B. Crosby; Barbara Crosby; David Crosby; John Crow, Jr.; Margaret Crow; Manuel Cruz; Louis M. Cummins; Frederick E. Dickerson; J.M. Eakes; Robert McFerran Eakes; Margaret Ellison; Sally M. Etterbeck; Minnie Flaks; Tillie Flaks; Cassio Frazzini; Adele Frost; Robert Galbasin; Abel S. Gallegos; Montey Garnand; Ruby Gibbs Goggans; Christine Hamilton; Hardin Simmons University; H.A. Harmon, named as: the Heirs of H.A. Harmon, deceased; Hondo Oil & Gas Company, named as: the shareholders of Hondo Oil & Gas Company (dissolved); Hyde Oil and Gas Corporation; Charles Kettering; Fidel Lucero; Richard C. Malcomb; Suzanne Heath Manges; Catherine B. McElvain; Mabel McElvain; Thornton H. McElvain,Jr.; Dorothy N. McKelvey; Edwin L. McKelvey; R. Franklin McKelvey; W.R. McMahon; McMurry Oil Company; W. Clay Meredith Charitable Trust; W.A. Moncrief, named as: the Heirs of W.A. Moncrief, deceased; Roy E. Montgomery, personal representative for the Estate of W. Clay Meredith, deceased; Forrest D. Miller, named as: the Heirs of Forrest D. Miller, deceased; HELEN L. MILLER, named as: the Heirs of Helen L. Miller, deceased; Thomas S. Morrissey; Thomas J. Morrissey; Emil Mosbacher; Emil Mosbacher, III; John David Mosbacher; R. Bruce Mosbacher; Myra Theresa Moulds; North Central Oil Corporation; H.L |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
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. *
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.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
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......
-
Leonhardt v. Western Sugar Co., 97-8078
...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 ......
-
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 stru......
-
U.S. v. Moon Lake Electric Ass'n, Inc., 98-CR-228-B.
...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 ......
-
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......
-
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......
-
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......
-
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......