Osage Wind, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. United States

  1. January 07, 2019

    High Court Skips Mass. AG Exxon Probe, Other Enviro Cases

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday passed on reviewing several environmental and energy cases, including Exxon Mobil Corp.'s quest to stop the Massachusetts attorney general's probe into the company's climate change statements and Oklahoma wind farm developers' bid to skip approvals from the Osage Nation for a project.

  2. December 19, 2018

    Wind Farm Cos. Tell Justices Feds Wrong On Tribal Appeal

    A trio of Oklahoma energy developers pressed the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday to take up their bid to overturn the Tenth Circuit's ruling that they needed Osage Nation and federal approval for a lease connected with a wind farm project, saying the solicitor general has wrongly argued that the tribe had the right to take part in the circuit court appeal.

  3. December 05, 2018

    Gov't Urges High Court To Rebuff Osage Wind Farm Petition

    The solicitor general has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to deny a bid by Oklahoma wind farm developers seeking to overturn a Tenth Circuit decision that said a mineral lease from the Osage Nation and federal approval were required for the project, stating that the tribe had a right to intervene and appeal because they would have been bound by the district court’s adverse judgment.

  4. May 14, 2018

    Justices Seek SG's View On Osage Wind Farm Lease Row

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday asked the solicitor general to weigh in on a bid by Oklahoma wind farm developers to overturn a Tenth Circuit decision that said a mineral lease from the Osage Nation and federal approval were required for surface construction on their project.

  5. March 08, 2018

    Wind Farm Cos. Urge Justices To Hear Osage Lease Case

    Oklahoma wind farm developers have urged the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their bid to overturn a Tenth Circuit decision that they needed a mineral lease from the Osage Nation and federal approval for surface construction on their project, saying the ruling wrongly favored the tribe's financial interests over the property rights of individual Indians and their successors.