UNITED STATES
v.
LOUISIANA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court issued an injunction in a dispute between the United States and Louisiana over tidelands resources, enjoining Louisiana from prosecuting a state court action against oil companies and prohibiting both parties from leasing or drilling in the disputed tidelands area pending the Court's further decision on the underlying controversy.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Upon consideration of the motion of the United States for an injunction or other interlocutory relief in cases involving the controversy pending before this Court in the case of United States of America v. State of Louisiana,
It is ordered that the Attorney General of the State of Louisiana and others named and others acting with them are enjoined from further prosecuting or taking any proceedings in a certain cause now pending in the Fourteenth Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana, entitled State of Louisiana v. Anderson-Prichard Oil Corporation et al., Number 38780 on the docket of said court, and from prosecuting any other case or cases involving the controversy before this Court until further order of the Court, and
It is further ordered that the State of Louisiana and the United States of America are enjoined from leasing or beginning the drilling of new wells in the disputed tidelands area pending further order of this Court unless by agreement of the parties filed here.
The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Louisiana, 446 U.S. 253 (U.S. 1980)…ent litigation) against Louisiana. 350 U. S. 990. The Court forthwith enjoined Louisiana and the United States “from leasing or beginning the drilling of new wells in the disputed tidelands area . . . unless by agreement of the parties filed here.” 351 U. S. 978 (1956). In response to this ruling, on October 12, 1956, the parties entered into an Interim Agreement designed to permit further development of the submerged lands in dispute. Interpretation of this agreement is the central task of this [*257] opin…1 / 3
-
Anderson-Prichard OIL Corp. v. Seaton, 237 F.2d 206 (D.C. Cir. 1956)…s to issue the injunction as prayed for in the complaint, and said motion was argued by counsel. Upon consideration whereof, it is Ordered by the Court that the aforesaid appellant’s motion be, and it is hereby, denied. United States v. Louisiana, 351 U.S. 978, 76 S.Ct. 1043.…1 / 2