Cases from cite.case.law:

UNITED STATES v. NAVAJO NATION, 537 U.S. 488 (U.S. 2003)

. . . . §§211.13, 211.16, 211.17. . . .

INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, v. L. ARMSTRONG, v., 91 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D.D.C. 2000)

. . . . § 211.13; 25 U.S.C. § 212.16. . . .

THE NAVAJO NATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 46 Fed. Cl. 217 (Fed. Cl. 2000)

. . . With respect to royalties, sections 211.13, 211.16, and 211.17 contain very extensive and explicit procedures . . .

INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, v. BABBITT,, 92 F.3d 1248 (D.C. Cir. 1996)

. . . . § 211.13 (1995) (tribal leases); 25 C.F.R. § 212.16 (1995) (Indian allotted land leases). . . . See, e.g., OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(A); MLA, 30 U.S.C. § 226(b); see also 25 C.F.R. § 211.13 (1995 . . . See OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1); MLA, 30 U.S.C. § 226; 25 C.F.R. § 211.13 (tribal leases); 25 C.F.R . . . . §§ 211.13(a) (tribal lands), 212.16 (allotted lands). . . .

AMOCO PRODUCTION CO. v. A. FRY,, 904 F. Supp. 3 (D.D.C. 1995)

. . . . § 211.13 (tribal leases); and 25 C.F.R. § 212.16 (allotted leases). . . . .

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, v. LUJAN, Jr., 811 F. Supp. 1520 (N.D. Okla. 1992)

. . . . § 211.13 (1982) (tribal lands); 25 C.F.R. § 172.16 (1980), redesignated, 25 C.F.R. § 212.16 (1982) . . .

In SABEC,, 137 B.R. 659 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1992)

. . . . § 211.2; § 211.13. . . .

COTTON PETROLEUM CORP. v. NEW MEXICO, 490 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1989)

. . . limitations, §211.9, the term of each lease, §211.10, and royalty rates, methods, and times of payment, §§211.13 . . . The regulations also address the manner of payment and amount of rents and royalties, §§211.12, 211.13 . . .

JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE, v. SUPRON ENERGY CORPORATION, G., 728 F.2d 1555 (10th Cir. 1984)

. . . . § 211.13 (1982) (formerly codified at 25 C.F.R. § 171.13). . . . Section 211.13 contains a “favored nation clause” for calculating value: “ ‘value’ ... may ... be calculated . . . APPENDIX Pertinent Regulations 25 C.F.R. pt. 211, Bureau of Indian Affairs (1982). “§ 211.13 Rates of . . .

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, v. A. FORD, W., 417 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Section 211.13, Florida Statutes (1981), in chapter 211, which imposes an excise tax on oil and gas as . . .

McWHIRTER DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC. v. TEXACO INC. M. A. P. OIL COMPANY, INC. v. TEXACO INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,, 668 F.2d 511 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . . § 211.13(c)(3) by applying to DOE for an increase in their allotments of gasoline from Texaco. . . . to be assigned a supplier and a base period volume on a temporary or permanent basis. . 10 C.F.R. § 211.13 . . .

SHELL OIL COMPANY, v. NELSON OIL COMPANY, INC., 627 F.2d 228 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . . § 211.13. . . . This certification by Nelson was required by 10 C.F.R. § 211.13(f), which states: Such application [for . . . The district court held that § 211.13(f) of the DOE regulations required that Nelson downward certify . . . Here, the district court found that the regulations, particularly 10 C.F.R. § 211.13(f), were clear, . . . Nelson’s construction of § 211.13(f) is incorrect. (emphasis added) 43 Fed.Reg. No. 112 at 25082. . . .

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE v. MARKHAM,, 381 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . Sections 211.13, 193.023, 193.011(7), 193.451, 193.621, 196.011(1), Florida Statutes 1977. . . . .

SUN OIL CO. DELAWARE U. S. A. v. F. M. FISHER, 370 So. 2d 413 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . Now: notwithstanding that Section 211.13 forbids any increased assessment of land because “there may . . . that, first levying that excise tax in 1945, the legislature admonished property appraisers in Section 211.13 . . . the county in which oil and gas is produced for the loss of ad valorem taxes by reason of” Section 211.13 . . . and sellers appraise them, and effectively repealed the inconsistent recitals in Section 211.02 and 211.13 . . . or owners thereof or against separate interests or rights in or to such subsurface rights. .Section 211.13 . . .

LOUISIANA LAND EXPLORATION COMPANY, v. E. J. GIBBS, Jr., 354 So. 2d 393 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . Sun Oil Company, 222 So.2d 196 (Fla.1969) and the subsequent amendment to Section 211.13, Florida Statutes . . . Section 211.13, Florida Statutes (1967) prohibited the value of land for ad valorem taxes from being . . . We find, however, the Small decision is inapplicable here because Section 211.13 has since been amended . . . With the deletion of the above language from Section 211.13 by Chapter 72-360, Laws of Florida (1972) . . .

J. Ed STRAUGHN, v. SUN OIL COMPANY DELAWARE F. M. FISHER v. SUN OIL COMPANY AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY, v. J. Ed STRAUGHN,, 345 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 1977)

. . . Moreover, it seems to me they have already spoken on this subject, when, in the enactment of § 211.13 . . .

F. M. FISHER v. SUN OIL COMPANY, 330 So. 2d 76 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976)

. . . In addition, 211.13 provides: “. . . . . .

J. QUIGLEY B. v. EXXON COMPANY U. S. A. a a, 376 F. Supp. 342 (M.D. Pa. 1974)

. . . . §§ 211.1, 211.11, 211.12, 211.13, 39 Fed.Reg.No. 10, pt. Ill (January 15, 1974). 7. . . .

BRENNAN PETROLEUM PRODUCTS CO. INC. v. PASCO PETROLEUM CO. INC., 373 F. Supp. 1312 (D. Ariz. 1974)

. . . . § 211.13. . . . Id. § 211.13(c). . . . Id. § 211.13(g). . . . F.R. § 211.13(c). . . . Id. § 211.13(e). . Id. § 211.13 (m). . . .

UNITED STATES v. STATE OF MICHIGAN, 346 F. Supp. 1277 (E.D. Mich. 1972)

. . . . § 211.13; M.S.A. § 7.13) . . . .

SMALL, T. E. O. v. SUN OIL COMPANY, a, 222 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1969)

. . . Section 211.13 of the Act prohibits the imposition by any other taxing unit of an additional excise tax . . . Sec. 211.13. . . . Sec. 211.13, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. (Italics supplied.) . . .

W. CULBERTSON, v. SEACOAST TOWERS EAST, INC. a, 212 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1968)

. . . F.S. 192.31(2), Sec. 211.13, Sec. 192.063, F.S.A., and Jasper v. William C. . . .

R. G. CASSADY, v. CONSOLIDATED NAVAL STORES COMPANY, a E. GREEN, v. CONSOLIDATED NAVAL STORES COMPANY, a, 119 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1960)

. . . See § 211.13 et seq., Fla. Stat., F.S.A. . . . purposes by reason of the fact that oil or gas may, or does, exist under the surface of such land. § 211.13 . . . must have intended, in enacting § 193.221, to repeal to some extent the tax exemption conferred by § 211.13 . . . such sub-surface rights, and thus effect, by necessary implication, a repeal of the provisions of § 211.13 . . .

CITY OF DETROIT v. MURRAY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a, 234 F.2d 380 (6th Cir. 1956)

. . . assessment date under Michigan law with which we are concerned was January 1, 1952, Comp.Laws Supp.1954, § 211.13 . . .