From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...
Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States
United States Supreme Court
530 U.S. 604 (2000)
Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. (Mobil) (plaintiff) entered into a contract with the U.S. government (defendant), in which Mobil paid approximately $158 million in exchange for ten-year leases pursuant to which Mobil could produce any oil it found off the coast of North Carolina. Mobil also agreed to pay subsequent rental and royalty payments. The contract was made subject to certain then-existing statutes and regulations, as well as future regulations promulgated pursuant to then-existing statutes. These statutes and regulations included, among other things, requirements that Mobil obtain Department of Interior (DOI) approval of an exploration plan and other approvals from the State of North Carolina. Under the statute, the DOI was required to approve an exploration plan that met its requirements within 30 days. Mobil submitted a draft exploration plan and the DOI issued an informal, preliminary finding that the proposed exploration would not significantly affect the environment. Subsequently, Congress enacted the Outer Banks Protection Act (OBPA), which altered the requirements to which Mobil was subject when it entered into the contract. Specifically, the newly-enacted OBPA delayed formal approval of any exploration plans for a period of at least 13 months, delayed approval of well permits, and created a new DOI environmental review. Two days after the enactment of OBPA, Mobil submitted its formal exploration plan to the DOI. Approximately five weeks later, the DOI wrote a letter to Mobil stating that Mobil’s exploration plan was “approvable in all respects,” but that the OBPA prohibited it from approving the plan at that time. About two months later, North Carolina objected to Mobil’s well permitting on the grounds that it did not have sufficient information. Mobil brought suit against the federal government claiming that the government repudiated the contract, and seeking restitution of its $158 million. The United States Court of Federal Claims granted Mobil summary judgment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Breyer, J.)
Dissent (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
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. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 222,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.