Legal Opinion

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Alaska

Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals

Decided August 26, 1991No. 10-85PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GRANT, Judge.

Appellants Exxon Corporation [Exxon] and Atlantic Richfield Co. [ARCO] appeal from the district court’s dismissal, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, of their motion to enforce the obligations of appellee the State of Alaska under the Final Settlement Agreement [FSA or Agreement]. The oil companies contend that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to consider FSA violations and should have issued both declaratory and injunctive relief. The State of Alaska seeks affirmance of the judgment below, reasserting its argument that the district court lacked…

2Cases cited44 opinions

  1. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Edelman v. JordanSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. United States v. United Mine Workers of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  4. United States v. KingSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  5. Love v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Simmons Oil Corporation (A/k/a David Christopher Corporation) v. Tesoro Petroleum CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
  2. Anadarko Production Co. v. New MexicoTemporary Emergency Court of Appeals · 1992
  3. Amber Refining, Inc. v. Occidental Oil & Gas Co.Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals · 1992

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

Powered by the Exa API