-
500 F.2d 728·
5th Cir.·
1974-09-20
·cited 30×
The court affirmed convictions for obstructing a navigable waterway and failing to properly mark a sunken vessel, but did not reach the conviction for failure to remove due to the concurrent sentence doctrine.
-
319 F.2d 512·
9th Cir.·
1963-06-19
·cited 24×
Statutory framework limits owner liability for sunken vessel removal costs to the value of the vessel itself, especially after abandonment.
-
374 F.2d 656·
4th Cir.·
1967-02-10
·cited 22×
Owners are liable for the cost of removing vessels sunk due to their negligence, as the Rivers and Harbors Act prohibits obstructions regardless of intent.
-
198 F.2d 289·
4th Cir.·
1952-08-04
·cited 20×
A bankruptcy trustee cannot abandon burdensome vessels in a navigable channel if doing so would violate federal law and obstruct navigation, even if the judge-made rule allows abandonment of unprofitable assets.
-
48 Fla. 311·
Fla.·
1904-06-01
·cited 16×
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a decree ordering county commissioners to remove or modify a bridge obstructing Cross Creek, holding that an individual suing solely on behalf of the public right of navigation must prove special injury different in kind from that suffered by th
-
190 F.2d 278·
3d Cir.·
1951-07-11
·cited 14×
The court held that the Secretary of the Army acted within his statutory authority in removing and proposing to sell a sunken barge that had obstructed navigation for over 30 days, even without notice to the new owner.
-
658 F.2d 392·
5th Cir.·
1981-10-08
·cited 12×
The court held that the defense of laches is unavailable against the United States when it is enforcing a public right, reversing the district court's decision that laches barred the government's action.
-
295 F.2d 53·
3d Cir.·
1961-09-27
·cited 12×
The United States is not entitled to recover the cost of removing a negligently sunken vessel from its owner under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended, when the government has elected to proceed under the Act's forfeiture provisions.
-
696 F.2d 685·
9th Cir.·
1983-01-10
·cited 7×
The court held that houseboats can be considered structures under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act, even if they also qualify as vessels, and that a factual dispute regarding their permanent mooring requires remand.
-
409 F.2d 961·
4th Cir.·
1969-04-10
·cited 6×
-
744 F.2d 1505·
11th Cir.·
1984-10-26
·cited 4×
The court held that the information must allege a volitional or causal act by the appellees that created the obstruction to state a claim for criminal liability under the Rivers and Harbors Act.
-
286 F.2d 875·
7th Cir.·
1961-02-17
·cited 4×
The court held that the prohibitory injunction should be amended to limit its scope to the area of actual deposits and affirmed as amended, but reversed the mandatory injunction due to erroneous determination of defendants' several responsibilities.
-
57 Fla. 101·
Fla.·
1909-01-01
·cited 2×
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company appealed a judgment for damages awarded to W. G. Yarbrough after the railroad cut loose a timber raft that had become lodged against a bridge pier during high water. The court reversed, holding that while the railroad had a duty to remove t
-
767 F. Supp. 2d 1316·
M.D. Fla.·
2011-02-10
The court held that the stationary dredge pipeline was not at fault for the allision, and the moving vessel (MISS JIGGS) was presumed to be at fault under the Oregon Rule, a presumption not rebutted by the claimants.
-
796 F.2d 685·
3d Cir.·
1986-07-21
The court held that the cost of a helper boat hired to safeguard personnel during the removal of negligently sunk barges is a recoverable "removal expense" under Section 15 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
-
295 F.2d 91·
4th Cir.·
1961-10-02
The court held that the libellants' oyster ground markers constituted obstructions to navigable waters, and the Government's removal of these obstructions was a valid exercise of its navigational servitude, even if it also served the Navy's interests.