43 U.S.C. § 1339
Repealed. Pub. L. 104–185, § 8(b), Aug. 13, 1996, 110 Stat. 1717
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2021 · leading case: Amoco Prod. Co. v. Donald P. Hodel, Sec'y of Dep't of the Interior, Defendants, 815 F.2d 352 (5th Cir. 1987).
Amoco Prod. Co. v. Donald P. Hodel, Sec'y of Dep't of the Interior, Defendants, 815 F.2d 352 (5th Cir. 1987). “Also, while Amoco concedes that it may obtain a refund through the refund procedure provided in section 10 of the OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. § 1339 , 6 if it obtains a favorable *358 ruling, Amoco contends that its aim in this action goes beyond any eventual claim for a refund.”
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 17 Cl. Ct. 537 (Ct. Cl. 1989). “The pivotal issue in this case is which of two contradictory interpretations of 43 U.S.C. § 1339 (a) (1982) applies to plaintiffs cause of action.”
Noble Energy, Inc. v. Kenneth Salazar, 671 F.3d 1241 (D.C. Cir. 2012). “at 7 (quoting 43 U.S.C. § 1339 (a)). Lessees could alternatively have the excess applied as a credit on future royalty payments.”
Indep. Petroleum Ass'n of Am. v. Bruce Babbitt, 92 F.3d 1248 (D.C. Cir. 1996). “Third, the court’s claim that lessees might be barred from seeking refunds of royalty overpayments, see 43 U.S.C. § 1339 , is mistaken because under the Secretary’s extraction-and-attribution principle royalties are assessed only at the time of production.”
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 923 F.2d 830 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “” 43 U.S.C. § 1339 (a). MMS, however, made an exception for *833 those lessees who filed “proper notice with MMS which tolled the 2-year statute.”
Amoco Prod. Co. v. Thomas A. Fry, Dir., Minerals Mgmt. Serv., 118 F.3d 812 (D.C. Cir. 1997). “43 U.S.C. § 1339 (a). In response to timely requests, the Department determines whether overpayments have been made and, if so, certifies the amounts to the Treasury Department to allow repayment in the form of refunds or credits.”
Amoco Prod. Co. v. Fry, 904 F. Supp. 3 (D.D.C. 1995). “” 43 U.S.C.A. § 1339 (a). Second, Congress must be given an opportunity to review the proposed credit or refund.”
Getty Oil Co. v. The United States, 767 F.2d 886 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “In any event, even if there were a crack of doubt about the applicability of either section 2516(a) or section 1339(a), it is amply filled by the rule that waivers of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed. The Claims Court’s order is affirmed.”
Mobil Expl. & Producing U.S., Inc. v. Babbitt, 913 F. Supp. 5 (D.D.C. 1995). “Next, MEPUS alleges that this case differs from Mobil I in that it is financially harmed by awaiting the outcome of its administrative appeal because if MEPUS is found to have overpaid royalties on appeal, the Dol will not pay interest when it refunds overpayments under 43…”
Placid Oil Co. v. United States Dep't of Interior, 491 F. Supp. 895 (N.D. Tex. 1980). “43 U.S.C. § 1339 contains language that authorizes reimbursement of any funds paid in excess of the sum lawfully required, if a request is filed within two years of the date of the payment.”
Nat'l Ass'n of Counties v. James A. Baker, Iii, Sec'y of the Treasury, 842 F.2d 369 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “§ 5596 (b)(1) (1982), and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1339 (a) (1982). 5 Finally, we note that our determination that the Revenue Sharing Act is not a compensation mandating statute supports our conclusion that the APA provides a waiver of sovereign…”
Frederick J. Frey v. Amoco Prod. Co., 943 F.2d 578 (5th Cir. 1991). “31 (citing 43 U.S.C. § 1339 : government-lessor administrative refunds of excess royalty payments allowed only if refund request filed within two years after payment made).”
— 43 U.S.C. § 1339(a) — 1 case
Shell Offshore Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 858 F.2d 1147 (5th Cir. 1989).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.