Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons™

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law

2004

Ohio

Articles 1 - 12 of 12

Full-Text Articles in Law

Appeal No. 0716: Ohio Casualty Group V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Oct 2004

Appeal No. 0716: Ohio Casualty Group V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 2003-15

Go to article

Appeal No. 0733: Chieftain Energy Corp. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Oct 2004

Appeal No. 0733: Chieftain Energy Corp. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 2004-40

Go to article

Appeal No. 0738: Lori & Alvin Perry V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Oct 2004

Appeal No. 0738: Lori & Alvin Perry V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 2004-43 (Mandatory Pooling Order)

Go to article

Appeal No. 0721: Eric Heinselman V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Mar 2004

Appeal No. 0721: Eric Heinselman V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 2003-54

Go to article

Appeal No. 0730: L.B.J. Drilling Co. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Mar 2004

Appeal No. 0730: L.B.J. Drilling Co. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 2003-90

Go to article

Appeal No. 0731: Brian Mccort V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Mar 2004

Appeal No. 0731: Brian Mccort V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 2003-96

Go to article

Appeal No. 0718: Poston Operating Co., Inc. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Jan 2004

Appeal No. 0718: Poston Operating Co., Inc. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 2003-26 and Chief's Order 2003-47

Go to article

Appeal No. 0728: Robert W. Barr, Dba Big Sky Petroleum V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Jan 2004

Appeal No. 0728: Robert W. Barr, Dba Big Sky Petroleum V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 2003-69

Go to article

Appeal No. 0725: Georgetown Oil Co., Inc. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Jan 2004

Appeal No. 0725: Georgetown Oil Co., Inc. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 2003-62

Go to article

Appeal No. 0713: Gemini Energy, Inc. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Jan 2004

Appeal No. 0713: Gemini Energy, Inc. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 2002-67

Go to article

Appeal No. 0719: Poston Operating Co., Inc. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Jan 2004

Appeal No. 0719: Poston Operating Co., Inc. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 2003-26 and Chief's Order 2003-47

Go to article

School Voucher Programs: Has The Supreme Court Pulled Up The Gangplank To Establishment Clause Challenges., Cecil C. Kuhne Iii Jan 2004

School Voucher Programs: Has The Supreme Court Pulled Up The Gangplank To Establishment Clause Challenges., Cecil C. Kuhne Iii

St. Mary's Law Journal

The Establishment Clause is not violated when a program is neutral toward religion and provides assistance directly to a broad class of citizens, who in turn voluntarily direct the aid to religious schools. A program containing these features permits government aid to reach religious institutions only thru the deliberate choices of individuals. Any incidental advancement or endorsement of religion is attributable to the individual recipient—not the government, which simply acts as a disburser. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the Supreme Court reiterated this rationale from a twenty-year line of cases. Zelman is a death knell for Establishment Clause challenges to carefully …

Go to article