16 U.S.C. § 814

Exercise by licensee of power of eminent domain

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar

When any licensee cannot acquire by contract or pledges an unimproved dam site or the right to use or damage the lands or property of others necessary to the construction, maintenance, or operation of any dam, reservoir, diversion structure, or the works appurtenant or accessory thereto, in conjunction with any improvement which in the judgment of the commission is desirable and justified in the public interest for the purpose of improving or developing a waterway or waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, it may acquire the same by the exercise of the right of eminent domain in the district court of the United States for the district in which such land or other property may be located, or in the State courts. The practice and procedure in any action or proceeding for that purpose in the district court of the United States shall conform as nearly as may be with the practice and procedure in similar action or proceeding in the courts of the State where the property is situated: Provided, That United States district courts shall only have jurisdiction of cases when the amount claimed by the owner of the property to be condemned exceeds $3,000 11 So in original. Probably should be followed by a colon. Provided further, That no licensee may use the right of eminent domain under this section to acquire any lands or other property that, prior to October 24, 1992, were owned by a State or political subdivision thereof and were part of or included within any public park, recreation area or wildlife refuge established under State or local law. In the case of lands or other property that are owned by a State or political subdivision and are part of or included within a public park, recreation area or wildlife refuge established under State or local law on or after October 24, 1992, no licensee may use the right of eminent domain under this section to acquire such lands or property unless there has been a public hearing held in the affected community and a finding by the Commission, after due consideration of expressed public views and the recommendations of the State or political subdivision that owns the lands or property, that the license will not interfere or be inconsistent with the purposes for which such lands or property are owned.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 79 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1930–2025 · leading case: Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation (1960) scotus · cites it 8× “, and, if not, (2) whether those lands may be condemned by the licensee, under the eminent domain powers conferred by § 21 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U. S. C. § 814 . We now turn to a consideration of those questions in the order stated.”

Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. (2006) scotus “, 16 U.S.C. §814 , or falls below, e.g., 22 U.”

Lois Davis v. Fort Bend County (2018) ca5 “, 16 U.S.C. § 814 , or falls below, e.g. , 22 U.”

Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida (1974) scotus · cites it 2× “1074 , 16 U. S. C. § 814 , which permits the acquisition of sites for the purpose of developing waterways by the exercise of the right of eminent domain in the federal district court in which the land is located or in the state courts.”

Marseilles Hydro Power, LLC v. Marseilles Land & Water Co. (2008) ca7 · cites it 2× “04 C 1427), in which it sought to take the canal by eminent domain under the power granted to it by 16 U.S.C. § 814 . Both the power company and the canal company had filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the original case before the eminent domain action began.”

Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC v. 2.468 Acres of Land in Levy County Florida (2023) ca11 · cites it 2× “Compare 16 U.S.C. § 814 , with 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h).”

Richard Pressl v. Appalachian Power Company (2016) ca4 “16 U.S.C. § 814 . Thus, a ruling against APCO in this case could not substantially affect federal interests.”

City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma (1958) scotus · cites it 2× “1074 , 16 U. S. C. § 814 . [3] On August 6, 1948, the City filed with the Commission its declaration of intention to build this power project.”

Litecubes, LLC v. Northern Light Products, Inc. (2008) cafc “, 16 U.S.C. § 814 , or falls below, e.g., 22 U.”

Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. v. Stuyvesant Falls Hydro Corp. (2006) nyappdiv · cites it 4× “It is clear that under the Federal Power Act, licensees may exercise the power of eminent domain in either federal district court or in state court (see 16 USC § 814 ). Respondent’s decision to proceed in accordance with the Eminent Domain Procedure Law clearly made it subject…”

Padilla v. Manlapaz (2009) nyed · cites it 2× “Examples where statutes have numerosity requirements that are jurisdictional can be found in 16 U.S.C. § 814 2 *301 and 22 U.S.C. § 6713 (a)(1)(B).”

Southern Natural Gas Co. v. Land, Cullman County (1999) ca11 · cites it 2× “Compare 16 U.S.C. § 814 , with 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h).”

Show all 79 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.