Legal Opinion

Amber Resources Co. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided November 15, 2005No. Nos. 02-30C, 04-1822C, 05-249CPublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BRUGGINK, Judge.

For more than twenty years, the government has been holding over $1.22 billion in up-front bonuses paid by plaintiffs and their predecessors in exchange for forty undeveloped oil and gas leases off the California coast. The leases give plaintiffs the right to extract oil and gas provided that their exploration, development, and production activities *538receive agency approval pursuant to the applicable statutory and regulatory scheme. Because Congress’ 1990 amendment of the Coastal Zone Management Act breached the thirty-six leases subject to this motion, we hold that…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. United States v. Winstar Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
  2. Department of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. Centex Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
  4. Secretary of the Interior v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2000

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Plains Exploration & Production Company v. Torch Energy Advisors IncorporatedTexas Supreme Court · 2015
  2. Amber Resources Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
  3. Century Exploration New Orleans, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
  4. Klamath Irrigation District v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
  5. Amber Resources Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API