Administrative Law Commons^™

Appeal No. 0561: Ohio Casualty Group V. Donald L. Mason, Chief, Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 94-154

Appeal No. 0562: Halwell Company, Inc. V. Donald L. Mason, Chief, Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 95-12

Appeal No. 0564: Unger Well Drilling Corp. V. Donald L. Mason, Chief, Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 95-20

Appeal No. 0572: Paul A. Grim V. Donald L. Mason, Chief, Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 95-103

Appeal No. 0575: N. & M. Burkhardt V. Donald L. Mason, Chief, Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 95-152

Appeal No. 0570: Muskingum Development Corp. V. Donald L. Mason, Chief, Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 95-62

Appeal No. 0568: R & W Greathouse V. Donald L. Mason, Chief, Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 95-75

Appeal No. 0563: Annie Thomas V. Donald L. Mason, Chief, Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 95-1

Appeal No. 0580: K.S.T. Oil & Gas V. Donald L. Mason, Chief, Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order 96-2

Appeal No. 0555: Centry Surety Company (Re Omega Oil Company) V. Richard J. Simmers, Acting,Chief Division Of Oil & Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Order 94-62

Appeal No. 0552: Mission Gas Company V. Richard J. Simmers, Acting Chief Division Of Oil And Gas, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Order 94-09

Appeal No. 0526: D & L Energy, Inc. V. Donald L. Mason, Chief, Division Of Oil & Gas, Oil And Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order No. 93-53

Appeal No. 0538: Petro Drilling Corp., V. Richard J. Simmers, Acting Chief Division Of Oil And Gas, Oil And Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order No. 93-210

Appeal No. 0541: Simco Exploration Corporation, V. Richard J. Simmers, Acting Chief Division Of Oil And Gas, Oil And Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order No. 93-204

Appeal No. 0543: Starvaggi Industries, Inc, V. Richard J. Simmers, Acting Chief Division Of Oil And Gas, Oil And Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order No. 93-252

Appeal No. 0533: Tom Wears, V. Richard J. Simmers, Acting Chief Division Of Oil And Gas, Oil And Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order No. 93-73

Appeal No. 0546: The Highland School, V. Donald L. Mason, Chief, Division Of Oil & Gas, Oil And Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order No. 93-235

Appeal No. 0548: Indepdendence Trust, James Robert Ford, Trustee, V. Donald L. Mason, Chief Division Of Oil & Gas, Oil And Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order No. 93-283

Appeal No. 0536: South Palm Energy, Inc., V. Richard J. Simmers, Acting Chief Division Of Oil And Gas, Oil And Gas Board Of Review

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Chief's Order No. 93-179

Administrative Law, Susan Wells Drechsel

Mercer Law Review

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a broad range of administrative law issues during 1995. In a case of first impression for the Eleventh Circuit, the court held that a criminal defendant's time spent in halfway and safe houses cannot be credited against the defendant's sentence. In reaching this conclusion, the court deferred to a "program statement" issued without notice and comment by the United States Department of Justice's Bureau of Prisons. The court also discussed, but did not decide, the first impression issue for the circuit of the proper scope of judicial review in an appeal of a …

The Problem Of Federal-Private Split Mineral Estates: Who Has Control?, David B. Shaver, Andrew C. Mergen, Scott W. Hardt, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

The Problem of Federal-Private Split Mineral Estates: Who Has Control? (April 23)

19 pages.

Includes footnotes.

Collection of 3 papers presented at the Hot Topics in Natural Resources Law program held on April 23, 1996.

Contents: National Park Service regulation of private mineral estates / David B. Shaver -- Recent litigation regarding federal split estates : who has control? what are the limits? / Andrew C. Mergen -- The problem of federal-private split mineral estates / Scott W. Hardt

Many federally owned lands overlie privately owned oil and gas and mineral rights. Increasingly, the competition between agency multiple use directives and private interests in resource development has resulted in legal battles between …

Administrative Driver's License Suspension: A Remedial Tool That Is Not In Jeopardy , Jennifer E. Dayok

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Externalization Of Domestic Regulation: Intellectual Property Rights Reform In A Global Era, Paul N. Doremus

Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies

Intellectual property rights (IPR) issues in the software, biotechnology, and semiconductor industries exemplify the pressure that new technologies and international competition are placing on domestic and international regulatory systems. Traditional patent and copyright rules cannot easily accommodate any of these technologies. At the same time, the high costs of research and development, relative ease of replication, and global markets characteristic of these technologies heighten the importance of both domestic and foreign IPR protection. In the context of rapidly changing technological conditions, borderless markets, and inflexible international regimes, national policymakers face a political dilemma: how to accommodate new technologies at home, …

Once Again: What's Fact, What's Law, And Who Decides, John Paul Jones

Law Faculty Publications

Professor Jones critiques a Virginia Circuit opinion, J. W Burress, Inc. v. Department of Motor Vehicles

Loss Of Protection As Injury In Fact: An Approach To Establishing Standing To Challenge Environmental Planning Decisions, Miles A. Yanick

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

As currently interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, Article III of the Constitution creates a significant hurdle for plaintiff citizen groups seeking standing to challenge environmental planning or management decisions. In particular, plaintiffs have had difficulty in making the required showing of an 'injury in fact" where an agency has not yet approved a site-specific action but has approved only a general plan for an area to govern future site-specific actions. The Supreme Court has not articulated a clear rule for standing to challenge the latter type of agency decision making, and the courts of appeals for the various …

Local Government Land Use Law: Tort And Mandamus Issues, Oregon Law Institute, David A. Ernst, Michael C. Robinson, Timothy V. Ramis, James H. Van Dyke, Michael A. Holstun, Richard Whitman, Edward J. Sullivan, Jeffrey G. Condit, James R. Herald, Wendie L. Kellington, John H. Nelson

Oregon Law Institute, 1996

Course Materials from the March 8, 1996 Program in Portland

Executive-Branch Rulemaking And Dispute Settlement In The World Trade Organization: A Proposal To Increase Public Participation, Aubry D. Smith

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that, because the Executive Branch increasingly will be promulgating domestic regulatory rules intended to comply with the rules of the world-trading system, it is necessary to increase formal oversight of the Executive Branch's role in that context. Part I argues that the United States' participation in the WTO implies a substantial increase in the impact of foreign policy on domestic policy. Part II points out a loophole in Congress's attempt to compensate for this increase by installing various devices to ensure political oversight of the Executive: the Executive Branch is subject, under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act …

Revoking The "Fishing License:" Recent Decisions Place Unwarranted Restrictions On Administrative Agencies' Power To Subpoena Personal Financial Records, Jack W. Campbell, Iv

Vanderbilt Law Review

The backbone of an administrative agency's effectiveness is the ability to investigate rapidly the activities of entities within the agency's jurisdiction., An agency's ability to carry out its investigative functions depends upon enforcement of the agency's administrative subpoenas. Courts have not always looked favorably upon broad agency subpoena power. The implementation of the New Deal and the exigencies of World War II created a need for increased administrative oversight of national affairs. Courts began to recognize the usefulness of proactive administrative government. Concurrent supreme court decisions reflected this philosophical change by adopting highly deferential views of administrative subpoena enforcement. This …

Complexity Theory As A Paradigm For The Dynamical Law-And-Society System: A Wake-Up Call For Legal Reductionism And The Modern Administrative State, J.B. Ruhl

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This article is the first in my series of articles exploring the application of complex adaptive systems (CAS) theory to legal systems. It builds the basic model of CAS and maps it onto legal systems, offering some suggestions for what it means in terms of legal institution and instrument design.

A Trust For Whom?: Managing Colorado's 3 Million Acres Of State Land, John M. Evans, Reeves Brown, Mark A. E. Burget, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center

A Trust for Whom?: Managing Colorado's 3 Million Acres of State Land: A Critique of the Constitutional Amendment (February 5)

14 pages.

Includes biographical information for John M. Evans, Reeves Brown, and Mark A. E. Burget.

State Land Board Commissioner Maxine Stewart was also a speaker for this program, but did not submit any written materials.

Contents:

A trust for whom? managing Colorado's 3 million acres of state land : a critique of the constitutional amendment / prepared by John Evans -- A cattlemen's [sic] perspective of state land management / presented by Reeves Brown -- Remarks outline / Mark A. E. Burget

Program was presented on Monday, February 5, 1996 at the offices of Holland & Hart in Denver, …