Violation Of Rivers And Harbors Act

14 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Citizens Comm. FOR the Hudson Valley v. Volpe
  425 F.2d 97· 2d Cir.· 1970-04-16 ·cited 48×
  The court held that plaintiffs had standing to challenge the Army Corps of Engineers' permit issuance under the Administrative Procedure Act, and that the permit was void as it exceeded the Corps' statutory authority under the Rivers and Harbors Act.
• United States v. Joseph G. Moretti, Inc.
  478 F.2d 418· 5th Cir.· 1973-05-15 ·cited 44×
  The court held that while the district court had jurisdiction and the power to issue a mandatory injunction, the mandatory injunction requiring restoration must be vacated to allow the administrative process for an after-the-fact permit to be completed.
• Weiszmann v. Dist. Eng'r
  526 F.2d 1302· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-17 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over a canal connecting to navigable waters but not over a landlocked canal excavated on private upland. The court also affirmed a civil penalty for FWPCA violations.
• Leslie Salt Co. v. Froehlke
  578 F.2d 742· 9th Cir.· 1978-05-11 ·cited 42×
  The court held that under the Rivers and Harbors Act, federal jurisdiction over tidal waters extends to the mean high water (MHW) line in its natural, unobstructed state, not the mean higher high water (MHHW) line. However, under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), j
• Romero-Barcelo v. Brown
  643 F.2d 835· 1st Cir.· 1981-01-26 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Military Construction Authorization Acts and presidential directives do not create an enforceable private right of action for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to challenge the Navy's training activities.
• Tatum v. Blackstock
  319 F.2d 397· 5th Cir.· 1963-06-25 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, deferring to the Corps of Engineers for the initial determination of whether a permit was required for construction activities on a tidal flat affecting navigable waters.
• Cent. Rivers Towing, Inc. v. City OF Beardstown
  750 F.2d 565· 7th Cir.· 1984-12-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the City was liable for negligently failing to remove a submerged bridge pier that became a hazard, and that the United States was liable for the Coast Guard's failure to properly mark the obstruction. The court also affirmed the district court's findings on c
• Ocie Mills v. United States
  36 F.3d 1052· 11th Cir.· 1994-10-27 ·cited 23×
  Ocie and Carey Mills were convicted of violating the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act by depositing fill material on wetlands without a permit. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of their § 2255 motion, rejecting their constitutional challenge to
• United States v. Ohio Valley Co., Inc.
  510 F.2d 1184· 7th Cir.· 1975-02-10 ·cited 22×
  The Limited Liability Act of 1851 does not apply to limit liability under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 for damages caused to U.S. property, and an indemnity agreement substitutes for the vessel itself.
• United States v. Savare DeFELICE
  641 F.2d 1169· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Corps of Engineers had jurisdiction over the private, artificial canal because it was tidal and navigable in fact, and that the dam was not 'currently serviceable' to qualify for a permit exemption.
• Norfolk & W. Co. v. United States
  641 F.2d 1201· 6th Cir.· 1980-10-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a collapsed dock extending into a river constitutes an obstruction to navigable capacity under the Rivers and Harbors Act, and that a private right of action is implied for such violations. It also affirmed the dismissal of negligence claims based on a latent
• United States v. Mills
  817 F. Supp. 1546· N.D. Fla.· 1993-03-31 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the Clean Water Act does not unconstitutionally delegate legislative power to the Army Corps of Engineers, and therefore denied the motion to vacate the sentence.
• United States v. Robinson
  570 F. Supp. 1157· M.D. Fla.· 1983-08-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendants violated the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act by illegally filling wetlands and ordered them to restore the property to its prior condition.
• United States v. Bayshore Assocs., Inc.
  934 F.2d 1389· 6th Cir.· 1991-05-30
  The court held that the "permanent injunction" was a preliminary injunction, that the TRO extended by stipulation became a preliminary injunction, and that the April 12 contempt order's fine was criminal, while the incarceration was civil.