United States v. Sunset Cove, Inc., an Oregon Corp., 514 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Sunset Cove, Inc., an Oregon Corp., 514 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bayou Des Familles Development Corp. v. United States Corp. (laed, 1982-04-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bayou Des Familles Development Corp. v. United States Corp.
E.D. La. · 1982 · confidence medium
Weiszmann v. District Engineer, 526 F.2d 1302, 1305 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Lewis, 355 F.Supp. 1132, 1141 (S.D.Ga.1973); United States v. Sunset Cove, Inc., 514 F.2d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sierra Club v. Andrus
9th Cir. · 1980 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
See Sanitary Dist. v. United States, 266 U.S. 405, 427-28 , 45 S.Ct. 176 , 69 L.Ed. 352 (1925); Cf. United States v. Sunset Coves, Inc., 514 F.2d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir.), Cert. denied, 423 U.S. 865 , 96 S.Ct. 125 , 46 L.Ed.2d 94 (1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sierra Club v. Andrus
9th Cir. · 1979 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
See Sanitary Dist. v. United States, 266 U.S. 405, 427-28 , 45 S.Ct. 176 , 69 L.Ed. 352 (1925); cf. United States v. Sunset Coves, Inc., 514 F.2d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 865 , 96 S.Ct. 125 , 46 L.Ed.2d 94 (1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Joseph G. Moretti, Inc.
S.D. Fla. · 1976 · confidence medium
The Government has presented a proposed plan which is not beyond the resources of Moretti, Inc. United States v. Sunset Cove, Inc., 514 F.2d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 1975), cited in Sexton Cove Estates at 1301. 5.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sierra Club v. Leslie Salt Co.
N.D. Cal. · 1976 · confidence medium
In Sunset Cove, supra, at p. 1090, although the Ninth Circuit held that the Corps was not estopped because “Sunset was acting at its peril” when it filled a navigable water, nevertheless, the court of Appeals modified a district court order that the fill be removed entirely, stating that “the court might have tempered the law with a touch of equity.” In the pending cases we are unable to find that the Corps of Engineers is es-topped from changing its policy and regulating the areas in question in the future.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Southern Investment Company, Southern Investment Company, Cross-Appellee v. United States of America, Cross-Appellant
8th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); United States v. Cameron, 466 F.Supp. 1099, 1112 (M.D.Fla.1978); see United States v. Sunset Cove, Inc., 514 F.2d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 865 , 96 S.Ct. 125 , 46 L.Ed.2d 94 (1975) (court’s location of the mean high-water line held not to be clearly erroneous).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Sexton Cove Estates, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Sunset Cove, D.Or.1973, 5 ERC 1029 , aff’d, 9 Cir. 1975, 514 F.2d 1089 . [¶] Nor do appellants stand on any more solid ground when they argue that individual lot owners are indispensable parties to this lawsuit.
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Board of Trustees of Florida Keys Community College
S.D. Fla. · 1981 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Sunset Cove, Inc., 514 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1975).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
SUNSET COVE, INC., an Oregon Corporation, Appellant
73-2198.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Apr 11, 1975.
514 F.2d 1089
1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 15205
James C. Maletis (argued), Maletis & Thorpe, Portland, Or., for appellant., Edmund B. Clark, Atty., Dept, of Justice (argued), Washington, D. C., for ap-pellee.
Chambers, Ely, Goodwin, Per Curiam.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The district court ordered the removal of about 1760 lineal feet of riprap (rock used for construction foundations) and fill material from a sandspit at the mouth of the Necanicum River. Sunset Cove, Inc., the developer of the sandspit, appeals. The judgment is affirmed as modified.

Sunset, apparently acting upon its belief that the Necanicum River was not a navigable stream within the meaning of 33 U.S.C. § 403, attempted to fill and stabilize the shoreline of a tract of land it had acquired from the city of Seaside, without requesting authorization from the Secretary of the Army.

Because of seasonal movement of the Necanicum channel and the migratory character of the shoals and sandbars within the area of its confluence with the sea, the sandspit in question has historically tended to expand and retract up and down the coast from north to south. In recent years northwest expansion has preponderated. Sunset acquired whatever title the city had to the sandspit during one of its more northerly extensions. Sunset then undertook to stabilize the sandspit against further erosion by the emplacement of riprap and by filling and elevating the surface to create building sites.

The district court, in findings of fact which are not clearly erroneous, found the Necanicum to be navigable and located the mean high-water line at a level that effectively declared the major part of Sunset’s fill to be in violation of 33 U.S.C. § 403.

Substantial trial time was devoted to Sunset’s efforts to establish some sort of estoppel against the Portland District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The court correctly found no basis for estoppel. Sunset was acting at its peril when, without permission it undertook to make improvements which effected permanent changes in the river channel and in its course.

In allowing the government’s prayer for relief, the district court ordered the total removal of the illegal landfill. Such an operation is, as a practical matter, far beyond the resources of Sunset or its principals. Here, we believe the court might have tempered the law with a touch of equity.

The judgment should be modified to require the removal of as much of the riprap as will permit nature, in a reasonable period of time, to take its course and approximately re-establish former topographic conditions. The manner of removal, with the above standard as a guideline, should be supervised by the Chief of Engineers or his designee, pursuant to that officer’s statutory responsibilities pertaining to navigable waters. In all other respects, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

The district court may stay its judgment, if it sees fit, for a reasonable time to allow the defendant to apply to the Chief of Engineers for an after-the-fact permit to cover any part of the previous construction the Chief of Engineers may recommend for approval. See 33 C.F.R. § 209.120(g)( 12)(ii)(b) (1974).

Affirmed in part; modified in part, and remanded.