Cases from cite.case.law:

CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, v. MULLIGAN,, 934 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 2006)

. . . Stat. (2005) (concerning seizure and forfeiture of marine vessels for various violations); §§ 329.10, 329.11 . . .

H. E. BANKS, v. UNITED STATES, L. H. As H. v. J. J. B. v., 71 Fed. Cl. 501 (Fed. Cl. 2006)

. . . Section 329.11(a)(2) of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations states: Ownership of a river or lake . . . the existence or extent of the dominant Federal jurisdiction over a navigable waterbody. 33 C.F.R. § 329.11 . . . ordinary high water mark as the boundary of the United States’ navigational servitude, 33 C.F.R. § 329.11 . . . Section 329.11(a) of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides: (a) Jurisdiction over entire . . . law, but only so far as the area is subject to inundation by the ordinary high waters. 33 C.F.R. § 329.11 . . .

H. E. BANKS, v. UNITED STATES, L. H. As H. v., 68 Fed. Cl. 524 (Fed. Cl. 2005)

. . . Section 329.11(a) of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which addresses the “[gjeographic and . . . Id. § 329.11(a)(1). . . . affect shoreline boundaries may also impact the navigational servitude contemplated in 33 C.F.R. § 329.11 . . . of their claim that “Michigan [l]aw controls,” the Banks plaintiffs point to the text of 33 C.F.R § 329.11 . . . Banks Opp’n at 13 (quoting 33 C.F.R § 329.11(a)(2)). . . .

UNITED STATES v. ALKAABI, a k a Al- v. I., 223 F. Supp. 2d 583 (D.N.J. 2002)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 329.11 (3d ed.2002). . . .

UNITED STATES v. L. LAMBERT, A., 915 F. Supp. 797 (S.D.W. Va. 1996)

. . . . § 329.11(a)(1). . "Fastland" is the land above the ordinary high water mark. United States v. . . .

In FORFEITURE OF ONE CESSNA T A, SERIAL NUMBER, 587 So. 2d 553 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . the forfeiture of a 1980 Cessna T-207 aircraft that had been seized pursuant to sections 329.10 and 329.11 . . . Both sections 329.10 and 329.11 require a “knowing” violation of the registration requirement. . . . Section 329.11(1)(b) contains similar language. . . . The amended complaint made reference to sections 329.10 and 329.11, Florida Statutes (1987), but failed . . . Section 329.11, Florida Statutes (1987), provides in pertinent part: (1)(a) It is unlawful for any person . . .

UNITED STATES M. v. C. E. HARRELL, Jr. M., 926 F.2d 1036 (11th Cir. 1991)

. . . Section 329.11(a)(1) of the regulations defines the ordinary high water mark” of non-tidal rivers as . . . The government, in its briefs, argues that, pursuant to the regulations, specifically section 329.11( . . . Id. at § 329.11(a). . Goose Creek Hunting Club, Inc. v. . . . Rands, 389 U.S. at 123, 88 S.Ct. at 267. . 33 C.F.R. § 329.11(a). . 33 C.F.R. § 329.11(a)(1). . . . .

RUTH, v. STATE, 574 So. 2d 225 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . . § 329.11, Fla.Stat. (1987). He was tried and convicted of this charge on May 25, 1988. . . .

IN RE FORFEITURE OF ONE CESSNA G AIRCRAFT, 39 Fla. Supp. 2d 121 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1989)

. . . , or in the aiding or abetting in the commission Of any felony, in violation of Sections 329.10 and 329.11 . . . U20606986 possessed unlawful identification numbers pursuant to Section 329.11, Florida Statutes (1987 . . . for felony aircraft registration and identification violations, in violation of Sections 329.10 and 329.11 . . . of, or in the aiding or abetting in the commission of, any felony, contrary to Sections 329.10 and 329.11 . . .

PILLSBURY COMPANY, v. MIDLAND ENTERPRISES, INC. M V ROBERT N. STOUT,, 715 F. Supp. 738 (E.D. La. 1989)

. . . . § 329.11(a), interpreted in Vieux Carre Property Owners, Residents & Associates, Inc. v. . . .

VIEUX CARRE PROPERTY OWNERS, RESIDENTS ASSOCIATES, INC. v. BROWN,, 875 F.2d 453 (5th Cir. 1989)

. . . Section 329.11(a)(1) specifically identifies the boundaries of navigable waters in rivers and lakes as . . . Although no Fifth Circuit cases specifically approve section 329.11(a), other courts have explicitly . . .

M. GOLLATTE, v. C. E. HARRELL, Jr., 731 F. Supp. 453 (S.D. Ala. 1989)

. . . . § 329.11(a)). But this lateral extension of jurisdiction is not without its limits. . . . First of all, the limiting scope is spelled out in some detail in § 329.11(a) of the Corps regulations . . . water mark is “the line on the shore established by ... a natural line impressed on the bank ...” (§ 329.11 . . . the soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; and the presence of litter and debris. (33 C.F.R. § 329.11 . . . See 33 C.F.R. § 329.11 (1987). That this occurred is not surprising. . . .

L. SWANSON, v. UNITED STATES, 789 F.2d 1368 (9th Cir. 1986)

. . . . § 329.11(a). . . .

J. PHEIL, v. E. GRIFFIN, Jr., 469 So. 2d 942 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . . § 329.11, Fla.Stat. (1983). . . .

BUTTREY, v. UNITED STATES, 573 F. Supp. 283 (E.D. La. 1983)

. . . over non-tidal rivers and lakes to reflect the traditional judicial concept of the bed of a river: § 329.11 . . . or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. 33 C.F.R. § 329.11 . . .

C. MILLER G. v. UNITED STATES, 480 F. Supp. 612 (E.D. Mich. 1979)

. . . ” (4) The navigable servitude of the United States extends to the ordinary high water level. 33 CFR 329.11 . . .