33 U.S.C. § 1
SHORT TITLE.
“This Act may be cited as the ‘Long Island Sound Stewardship Act of 2006’.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1929–2024 · leading case: United States v. Davis, 339 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2003).
United States v. Davis, 339 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2003). “§ 460d and 33 U.S.C. § 1 . Section 460d states in pertinent part: The Chief of Engineers, under the supervision of the Secretary of the Army, is authorized to construct, maintain, and operate public park and recreational facilities at water resource development projects under…”
United States v. Pedro Saade, United States of Am. v. Carlos Zenon Rodriguez, 652 F.2d 1126 (1st Cir. 1981). “3 Although the marshals were unable to arrest any of the intruders at the scene, they were able to positively identify through eyewitnesses two of the people aboard boats in the flotilla — Pedro Saade and Carlos Zenon Rodriguez.”
Northlight Harbor, LLC v. United States, 561 F. Supp. 2d 517 (D.N.J. 2008). “§ 1 defines the Army Corps’ regulatory authority and provides in relevant part: It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Army to prescribe such regulations for the use, administration, and navigation of the navigable waters of the United States as in his judgment the public…”
In re the Complaint of Ingram Barge Co., 194 F. Supp. 3d 766 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “]” See 33 U.S.C. § 1 . As the Supreme Court noted in Gaubert , “it ■will most often be true that the general aims and policies of the controlling statute will be evident from its text.”
Hogge v. Ss Yorkmar, 434 F. Supp. 715 (D. Maryland 1977). “Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917, 33 U.S.C.A. § 1 , the Secretary of the Army, on May 2, 1972, duly prescribed Regulations for the use, administration and navigation of the Canal.”
Barcelo v. Brown, 478 F. Supp. 646 (D.P.R. 1979). “Generally, they commend to the sound judgment of the Secretary decisions on whether navigable waters should be restricted. His judgment is to be founded upon what “the public necessity may require for the protection of life and property.”
United States v. Zenon, 285 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D.P.R. 2003). “1470 was improperly promulgated under 33 U.S.C. § 1 , and that it should have been promulgated under 33 U.”
City of Gettysburg v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 429 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “33 U.S.C. § 1 , et seq.; see also United States v.”
United States v. Zenón-Encarnación, 387 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2004). “3d at 35 , since 1993 the authority to promulgate danger zone regulations has resided in both 33 U.S.C. § 1 and 33 U.S.C. § 3 , since 33 C.”
Est. of Alexander C. Callas, Etc. v. United States of Am. & United States Army Corps of Engineers, 682 F.2d 613 (7th Cir. 1982). “33 U.S.C. § 1 (1976) provides in part: “It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Army to prescribe such regulations for the use, administration, and navigation of the navigable waters of the United States as in his judgment the public necessity may require for the protection…”
Chotin Transp., Inc., Cross-Appellee v. United States of Am., Cross-Appellant, 784 F.2d 206 (6th Cir. 1986). “In regard to these findings, see the extraordinary powers given to the lockmaster by the Secretary of the Army under 33 U.S.C. § 1 as quoted in Appendix 1 to this opinion.”
Hix v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 155 F. App'x 121 (5th Cir. 2005). “In the River and Harbor Act of 1894, 33 U.S.C. § 1 , Congress delegated to the Secretary of the Army the authority to "prescribe such regulations for the use, administration, and navigation of the navigable waters of the United States as in his judgment the public necessity may…”
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.