28 U.S.C. § 1497
Oyster growers’ damages from dredging operations
The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim for damages to oyster growers on private or leased lands or bottoms arising from dredging operations or use of other machinery and equipment in making river and harbor improvements authorized by Act of Congress.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1960–2021 · leading case: Fisherman's Harvest, Inc. v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 681 (Fed. Cl. 2006).
Fisherman's Harvest, Inc. v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 681 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “Introduction In this case brought before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1497 , oyster growers seek relief for damages to their oyster beds allegedly caused by dredging operations implemented by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”).”
Fisherman's Harvest v. Pbs & J (Formerly Known as Espey, Huston & Assocs.) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 490 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “This case involves alleged damage to oyster growers due to dredging operations and requires us to interpret the scope of jurisdiction provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1497 and the availability of 28 U.”
Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962). “§§ 1495 , 2513 (wrongful imprisonment); 28 U. S. C. § 1497 (trespass to oyster beds).”
Petrovich v. United States, 190 Ct. Cl. 760 (Ct. Cl. 1970). “Cowen, Chief Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: * This is a case filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1497 (1964) wherein an oyster grower asserts a claim for damages allegedly arising from dredging operations of defendant United States in making river and harbor improvements…”
LaFont v. United States, 17 Cl. Ct. 837 (Ct. Cl. 1989). “OPINION LYDON, Senior Judge: Plaintiff, an oyster grower, seeks to recover damages, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1497 (1982), 1 arising from dredging operations by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).”
Quality Tooling, Inc. v. United States, 47 F.3d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “§ 9606 (b)(2)(B) (granting authority to sue the United States for reimbursement for compliance costs in certain situations); 28 U.S.C. § 1497 (oyster growers' damages from dredging operations).”
Fisherman's Harvest, Inc. v. Weeks Marine, Inc., 401 F. Supp. 2d 745 (S.D. Tex. 2005). “Under 28 U.S.C. § 1497 , the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to “render judgment upon any claim for damages to oyster growers on private or leased lands or bottoms arising from dredging operations or use of other machinery and equipment in making river and harbor…”
Ramirez v. United States, 36 Fed. Cl. 467 (Fed. Cl. 1996). “The Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction “to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United…”
Blake v. United States, 181 F. Supp. 584 (E.D. Va. 1960). “Finally, libellants say that, even if the respondent was exercising its dominant power over navigation, there is a policy under 28 U.S.C. § 1497 and 33 U.S.C.A. § 3 favoring oyster ground planters and fishing interests in general.”
Campo v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021). “* 28 U.S.C. § 1497 ; Louisiana * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant.”
Campo v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021). “* 28 U.S.C. § 1497 ; Louisiana * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant.”
Edward P. Blake v. United States of Am., Odell M. Blake v. United States of Am., Eldridge Cook v. United States, 295 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1961). “570 , in which damages were allowed to oyster-men for injuries to the property caused by dredging operations of the Government but the decision in these eases was controlled by an Act of Congress, such as the Act of 1948, 28 U.S.C. § 1497 , which provided for the relief of…”
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.