U.S. Code » Title 33 » Chapter CHAPTER 36— WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER V— GENERAL PROVISIONS

33 U.S.C. § 2304

Separability

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 33 CasesGoogle Scholar

If any provision of this Act, or the application of any provision of this Act to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, and the remainder of this Act, shall not be affected thereby.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1995–2000 · leading case: Amoco Oil Co. v. United States, 234 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Amoco Oil Co. v. United States, 234 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “With respect to the severability issue, the court based its conclusion on the existence of a general sever-ability provision within the WRDA, codified at 33 U.S.C. § 2304 , and on its duty to interpret statutes “so as to maintain, rather than destroy, their constitutionality”…”
United States Shoe Corp. v. United States, 907 F. Supp. 408 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995). · cites it 2× “Water Resources Development Act § 949, 33 U.S.C. § 2304 (1988). The Tax imposes an ad valorem tax on "any port use" of federally-maintained navigable waterways.”
Amoco Oil Co. v. United States, 63 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999). · cites it 3× “Thus, the enactment of a severability provision within the WRDA, 33 U.S.C. § 2304 , 6 creates a presumption that Congress did not intend the validity of the HMT as a whole to depend on the validity of Constitutionally-offensive provisions.”
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. United States, 200 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “33 U.S.C. § 2304 (1994). On its face, this provision appears to make the remainder of the Harbor Tax severable from the tax on exports held unconstitutional in U.”
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. United States, 929 F. Supp. 1570 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996). “WRDA § 949, 33 U.S.C. § 2304 (1988). The inclusion of such a provision creates the presumption that Congress did not intend the validity of the WRDA to depend upon the validity of the constitutionally offensive provision — in this case, those portions of the HMT dealing with…”
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.