Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Andrus, Secretary Of The Interior v. Shell Oil Co. Et Al.

• 1979 • 446 U.S. 657 • Burger Court
In the case of Andrus, Secretary of the Interior v. Shell Oil Co., et al., 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under Section 5(a) of Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), oil and gas leases did not grant lessees exclusive rights to geological data they submitted to the Secretary as part of their exploration plans. The court held that OCSLA allowed for sharing this information with both state governments and third parties after a certain period had passed from when it was first obtained...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1979
Docket: 78-1815
446 U.S. 657
100 S. Ct. 1932
64 L. Ed. 2d 593
1980 U.S. LEXIS 39
Argued: Jan 15, 1980

Andrus, Secretary Of The Interior v. Shell Oil Co. Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Andrus, Secretary of the Interior v. Shell Oil Co., et al., 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under Section 5(a) of Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), oil and gas leases did not grant lessees exclusive rights to geological data they submitted to the Secretary as part of their exploration plans. The court held that OCSLA allowed for sharing this information with both state governments and third parties after a certain period had passed from when it was first obtained by leaseholders. This decision overturned an earlier ruling by a federal appeals court which had sided with Shell Oil Company's argument against such sharing on grounds including alleged violation of trade secrets protections.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Andrus v. Shell Oil Co., Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 21 of the Mineral Leasing Act, arguing that it did not give authority to the Secretary of Interior to regulate oil and gas exports. He contended that Congress had intended this power to lie solely within its own purview, as demonstrated by their explicit delegation in other statutes but not in this one. Furthermore, he argued against reading an export control provision into a statute where none existed explicitly. The dissent also pointed out inconsistencies between this decision and previous rulings on similar matters involving statutory construction principles applied by courts when interpreting congressional intent from legislative history or text ambiguity.

Opinion written by Justice WEBurger
Decided: Jun 02, 1980
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms