Citation network
Andrus Vs. Shell Oil Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 02, 1980
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Andrus v. ShellSearch
-
Oil Co. - 446 U.S. 657 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Andrus v. ShellSearch
-
Oil Co., 446 U.S. 657 (1980) Andrus v. ShellSearch
-
were invalid, a hearing examiner ruled the claims valid on the ground that the Department's 1927 decision in Freeman v. SummersSearch
-
an operating mine that would yield a reasonable profit. It rejected prior departmental precedent, particularly Freeman v. SummersSearch
-
the rule of Freeman v. SummersSearch
-
to begin adjudicating applications for patents for pre-1920 oil shale claims, and later enunciated in Freeman v. SummersSearch
-
was one justifying present expenditures with a reasonable prospect of developing a profitable mine. See United States v. ColemanSearch
-
Castle v. WombleSearch
-
test. However, he deemed himself bound by the Department's contrary decision in Freeman v. SummersSearch
-
Id. at 206. (Emphasis added.) The hearing examiner ruled that Freeman v. SummersSearch
-
conclusion was at odds with prior departmental precedent, and Page 446 U. S. 662 particularly with Freeman v. SummersSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the decision in Freeman v. SummersSearch
-
Shell Oil Co. v. KleppeSearch
-
Book v. JusticeSearch
-
Madison v. OctaveSearch
-
Oil Co., 154 Cal. 768, 772, 99 P. 176, 178 (1908) (emphasis added). Accord, Cascaden v. BartolisSearch
-
United States v. OhioSearch
-
Montana Cent. R. Co. v. MigeonSearch
-
Dennis v. UtahSearch
-
was not mentioned as a relevant, let alone a critical, consideration. In 1927, the Department decided Freeman v. SummersSearch
-
Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 288 U. S. 294 , 288 U. S. 315 (1933). Accord, e.g., United States v. NationalSearch
-
Ralph S. Kelly, then the General Land Office Division Inspector in Denver. Kelly's criticism centered on the Freeman v. SummersSearch
-
that the original position of the Department of the Interior, enunciated in the 1920 Instructions and in Freeman v. SummersSearch
-
See Hickel v. OilSearch
-
Kendall v. SanSearch
-
both at the time of location and at the time of determination. Barrows v. HickelSearch
-
In Chrisman v. MillerSearch
-
L.D. at 457. Accord, Best v. HumboldtSearch
-
Cameron v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 252 U. S. 450 , 252 U. S. 459 (1920). In United States v. ColemanSearch
-
U. S. 313 (1960). This sound admonition has guided several of our recent decisions. See, e.g., TVA v. HillSearch
-
as a source that a court may consider in the search for legislative intent. See, e.g., Seatrain Shipbuilding Corp. v. ShellSearch
-
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCCSearch
-
NLRB v. BellSearch
-
United States v. StraussSearch
-
that a present marketability standard does not apply to oil shale. It does not affect our conclusion in United States v. ColemanSearch
-
were not meaningful data under the Castle v. WombleSearch
-
he future value concept of Freeman v. SummersSearch
-
is nothing more than the 'reasonable prospect of success' of Castle v. WombleSearch
-
and the reference to 'present facts' in Castle v. WombleSearch
-
of the statute by the agency charged with its application is entitled to substantial weight. See United States v. NationalSearch
-
The Court points to congressional committee hearings that were held in 1931 on the Secretary's 1927 Freeman v. SummersSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Andrus v. ShellSearch
-
Freeman v. SummersSearch
-
of Freeman v. SummersSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial