Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictioninjunctionappealleasecontinental shelf
jurisdictioninjunctionappealleasecontinental shelf

Related Cases

Okeke v. Ewool, 106 A.D.3d 709, 964 N.Y.S.2d 249, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 03072
View Case »
K-Mart Corp. v. Oriental Plaza, Inc., 875 F.2d 907
View Case »
United States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594
View Case »
State ex rel. King v. B & B Investment Group, Inc., 329 P.3d 658, 2014-NMSC-024
View Case »
Virginia College, LLC v. SSF Savannah Properties, LLC, 93 F.Supp.3d 1370, 322 Ed. Law Rep. 313
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281, 2013 A.M.C. 1987, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2676, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3149

Facts

Shell Offshore, Inc. and Shell Gulf of Mexico, Inc. hold multi-year oil and gas leases in the Outer Continental Shelf located in the Arctic Ocean off the coast of Alaska. Greenpeace, Inc. has actively campaigned to stop Shell from drilling in the Arctic, including using direct actions that have involved illegal activities. Shell sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Greenpeace from interfering with its vessels during its drilling operations, citing past incidents of unlawful boarding and obstruction by Greenpeace activists.

Shell Offshore, Inc. and Shell Gulf of Mexico, Inc. hold multi-year oil and gas leases in the Outer Continental Shelf located in the Arctic Ocean off the coast of Alaska.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether Shell had standing to seek a preliminary injunction, whether the action was ripe for review, and whether the district court had jurisdiction to issue the injunction against Greenpeace.

The main legal issues were whether Shell had standing to seek a preliminary injunction, whether the action was ripe for review, and whether the district court had jurisdiction to issue the injunction against Greenpeace.

Rule

The court applied the legal principles regarding standing, ripeness, and the requirements for granting a preliminary injunction, which include demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, a balance of equities in favor of the movant, and that the injunction is in the public interest.

The court applied the legal principles regarding standing, ripeness, and the requirements for granting a preliminary injunction, which include demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, a balance of equities in favor of the movant, and that the injunction is in the public interest.

Analysis

The court found that Shell had established standing based on the likelihood of irreparable harm from Greenpeace's actions, which posed risks to human life and property. The court also determined that the action was ripe for review due to the imminent nature of the drilling season and the potential for Greenpeace to interfere. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction, as Shell had shown a likelihood of success on the merits and that the balance of equities favored Shell.

The court found that Shell had established standing based on the likelihood of irreparable harm from Greenpeace's actions, which posed risks to human life and property.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to grant the preliminary injunction, concluding that Shell had standing and that the injunction was justified based on the evidence presented.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to grant the preliminary injunction, concluding that Shell had standing and that the injunction was justified based on the evidence presented.

Who won?

Shell Offshore, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found that it had established the necessary legal standards for a preliminary injunction, including standing and likelihood of irreparable harm.

Shell Offshore, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found that it had established the necessary legal standards for a preliminary injunction, including standing and likelihood of irreparable harm.

You must be