Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Woods Petroleum Corp. v. U.S. Department of the Interior

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
47 F.3d 1032 (10th Cir. 1994)


Facts

Woods Petroleum Corporation (Woods) (plaintiff) was the lessee of oil and gas rights under a lease issued by Native Americans. Woods and other working-interest owners signed a communitization agreement, pooling their mineral interests. A well was drilled on a tract in the pooled unit, but not on Woods’s tract. Shortly before Woods’s lease was set to expire, Woods filed the communitization agreement for approval with the United States Department of the Interior (DOI) (defendant). The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the agreement. The Native American lessors appealed to the DOI’s assistant secretary. The assistant secretary reversed the BIA and rejected the communitization agreement. The assistant secretary issued the rejection solely because the Native American lessors sought expiration of the Woods lease so that they could sign a new lease with Tomlinson Properties, Inc. (Tomlinson) (defendant), which had committed to paying the lessors a $400,000 bonus. As a result of the DOI’s rejection of the communitization agreement, the production on the other tract in the unit did not serve to extend Woods’s lease, and Woods’s lease expired. The DOI rejection order confirmed this expiration. The lessors then signed a lease with Tomlinson, and the DOI subsequently approved an identical communitization agreement, with the only difference being Tomlinson as the lessee. Woods appealed. The district court affirmed the DOI order. A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed. The court of appeals granted the DOI’s petition for rehearing en banc.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Ebel, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Henry, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

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 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.

  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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.