Chevron USA Production Co. v. U.S. Department of Interior

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• affirming that MMS was correct in limiting royalties assessed on the buy-down portion of a settlement payment to the gas that was produced during the time period of the original contract
• stating that the purchasers continued to take gas from the producer after the settlement and that the royalty assessment on the settlement was proper because, among other reasons, it was \limited to the gas sold to the original purchaser\
• using the fact that the price for gas was lower in the settlement agreement than the original contract to infer that the settlement payment was credited toward future production
• “[W]hen that future gas is produced and sold to that purchaser at the reduced price[,] the portion of the settlement attributable to obtaining the reduced price becomes royalty bearing.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).