Shoshone Indian Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
56 Fed. Cl. 639 (2003)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
The Shoshone Indian Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming (Tribe) (plaintiff) received royalties for minerals extracted from its land. Department of the Interior regulations set a comprehensive framework for the government’s valuation of minerals on tribal lands for royalty purposes. The Minerals Management Service (MMS), a federal government agency, managed the leases, valuated the minerals pursuant to these regulations, and made royalty payments. The Tribe brought suit against the federal government, claiming that MMS breached its fiduciary duty to the Tribe by (1) not maximizing the Tribe’s royalties and (2) not collecting royalties based on the correct value of production. The Tribe conceded at oral argument that it could not maintain the maximization claim. In a separate claim the Tribe also claimed that it was improperly not paid royalties based on a lessee’s take-or-pay obligations. Specifically, the Tribe claimed that it was due royalties based on the payments the lessee was required to make for minerals that were not produced under the take-or-pay obligations. The federal government filed a motion to dismiss the maximization claim and valuation claim, and filed a motion for summary judgment on the take-or-pay claim.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hewitt, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.