Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Hodel

630 F.Supp. 621 (1986)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Hodel

United States District Court for the District of Columbia
630 F.Supp. 621 (1986)

Facts

Section 352 of the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands, 30 U.S.C. §§ 351 et seq., subjected mineral leases on federally acquired lands to the consent of and conditions prescribed by the head of the executive department with jurisdiction over those lands. In addition, section 211(b) of the Mineral Leasing Act (Act), 30 U.S.C. §§ 181 et seq., required phosphate-lease applicants to demonstrate the discovery of valuable deposits of phosphates on their lands. In the 1960s, the Kerr-McGee Corporation (Kerr) (plaintiff) obtained phosphate-prospecting permits from the Department of the Interior (Department) (defendant) for mining activities in the Osceola National Forest (Forest). Between 1969 and 1972, Kerr submitted preference-right lease applications to the Department, alleging the discovery of valuable deposits of phosphates under section 211(b). The United States Geological Survey (USGS) certified that the deposits were valuable based on their physical characteristics. The Department promulgated regulations in 1976 requiring lease applicants, in order to satisfy the valuable-deposit test, to demonstrate a reasonable expectation that mineral-sale revenues would exceed mining development and marketing costs. In February 1982, the United States Forest Service (USFS) submitted lease stipulations that required the reclamation of plant and aquatic resources. The Department’s 1974 environmental impact statement (EIS) and 1979 EIS supplement expressed doubt about the success of reclamation, due in part to the state of technical knowledge. In 1982, an interagency task force found that the Department’s technology was still insufficient to reasonably ensure successful reclamation. In January 1983, the secretary of the interior (secretary) (defendant) rejected all pending lease applications for the Forest, finding that Kerr had not discovered valuable deposits because of the technology-related costs of reclamation. Kerr sued the secretary and the Department, claiming that the denial of its applications had deprived Kerr of its vested phosphate-mining rights. Both parties moved for summary judgment.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Parker, 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 734,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership