16 U.S.C. § 820

Proceedings for revocation of license or to prevent violations of license

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

The Attorney General may, on request of the commission or of the Secretary of the Army, institute proceedings in equity in the district court of the United States in the district in which any project or part thereof is situated for the purpose of revoking for violation of its terms any permit or license issued hereunder, or for the purpose of remedying or correcting by injunction, mandamus, or other process any act of commission or omission in violation of the provisions of this chapter or of any lawful regulation or order promulgated hereunder. The district courts shall have jurisdiction over all of the above-mentioned proceedings and shall have power to issue and execute all necessary process and to make and enforce all writs, orders and decrees to compel compliance with the lawful orders and regulations of the commission and of the Secretary of the Army, and to compel the performance of any condition imposed under the provisions of this chapter. In the event a decree revoking a license is entered, the court is empowered to sell the whole or any part of the project or projects under license, to wind up the business of such licensee conducted in connection with such project or projects, to distribute the proceeds to the parties entitled to the same, and to make and enforce such further orders and decrees as equity and justice may require. At such sale or sales the vendee shall take the rights and privileges belonging to the licensee and shall perform the duties of such licensee and assume all outstanding obligations and liabilities of the licensee which the court may deem equitable in the premises; and at such sale or sales the United States may become a purchaser, but it shall not be required to pay a greater amount than it would be required to pay under the provisions of section 807 of this title at the termination of the license.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1933–2015 · leading case: United States v. Joseph Merlino, 785 F.3d 79 (3rd Cir. 2015).
United States v. Joseph Merlino, 785 F.3d 79 (3rd Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “”); 16 U.S.C. § 820 (“The Attorney General may .”
Fed. Power Comm'n v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 347 U.S. 239 (1954). · cites it 2× “1076 , 16 U. S. C. § 820 . "Net investment" is defined in § 3 as follows: "(13) `net investment' in a project means the actual legitimate original cost thereof as defined and interpreted in the `classification of investment in road and equipment of steam roads, issue of 1914,…”
Pennsylvania Water & Power Co. v. Consol. Gas, Elec. Light & Power Co. Of Baltimore (Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Maryland, Intervener), 184 F.2d 552 (4th Cir. 1950). · cites it 2× “Section 26, 16 U.S.C.A. § 820 , provides that the Attorney General may on request of the Commission or the Secretary of the Army proceed in equity in a District Court of the United States for the purpose of revoking any license for the violation of its terms or to prevent any…”
Appalachian Elec. Power Co. v. Smith, 67 F.2d 451 (4th Cir. 1933). · cites it 2× “Section 26, 16 USCA § 820. Violation of section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 USCA § 403), which forbids the erection of any structure which will impair the navigability of any of the navigable waters of the United States, is made a misdemeanor; and it is the Attorney…”
Carolina Power & Light Co. v. South Carolina Pub. Serv. Auth., 94 F.2d 520 (4th Cir. 1938). “1076 , 16 U.S.C.A. § 820 . Whether the remedy thus provided is exclusive where private persons sustain direct and special injury as a result of the invasion of their rights, we need not decide.”
Trans-Pac. Freight Conf. of Japan v. Fed. Mar. Bd., 302 F.2d 875 (D.C. Cir. 1962). “§ 45 (b) (Federal Trade Commission); 16 U.S. C.A. § 820 (Federal Power Commission); 29 U.”
Chitwood v. South Carolina Elec. & Gas Co., 51 F. Supp. 486 (E.D.S.C. 1943). “And, with respect to obstruction of navigable waters, provision is expressly made by federal statute for the Attorney General of the United States to institute proceedings for the removal of such obstruction.”
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.