When used in this subchapter, unless the context indicates otherwise—
The term “alteration” includes changes of any kind, reconstruction, or removal in whole or in part.
The term “bridge” means a lawful bridge over navigable waters of the United States, including approaches, fenders, and appurtenances thereto, which is used and operated for the purpose of carrying railroad traffic, or both railroad and highway traffic, or if a State, county, municipality, or other political subdivision is the owner or joint owner thereof, which is used and operated for the purpose of carrying highway traffic.
The term “bridge owner” means any State, county, municipality, or other political subdivision, or any corporation, association, partnership, or individual owning, or jointly owning, any bridge, and, when any bridge shall be in the possession or under the control of any trustee, receiver, trustee in a case under title 11, or lessee, such terms shall include both the owner of the legal title and the person or the entity in possession or control of such bridge.
The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating.
The term “United States”, when used in a geographical sense, includes the Territories and possessions of the United States.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Illinois Terminal R. Co., 501 F. Supp. 18 (E.D. Mo. 1980).
· cites it 2× “Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies The railroad contends that an administrative hearg, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 511 , et seq., is a condition precedent before this Court can exercise jurisdiction.”
Sture v. Sigfred v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 230 F.2d 13 (5th Cir. 1956).
“§§ 77a to 77bbbb, 78a to 78jj, review 78y; alteration of bridges over navigable waters, 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 511 to 523, reviewable 520; Postal Department orders restricting use of the mails, 39 U.”
Petition of Canal Barge Co., 323 F. Supp. 805 (N.D. Miss. 1971).
“33 U.S.C. § 511 et seq. No doubt, the venerable Eads, now in its 97th year, may present a hazard to navigation, as do all bridges, but it is not an unreasonable obstruction to navigation and remains a lawful structure, and its owner and operator are entitled to rely upon boats…”
Dakota, Minnesota & E. Ry. v. Ingram Barge Co., 918 F.3d 967 (8th Cir. 2019).
“The Order to Alter declared the Bridge to be an "unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the Upper Mississippi River" and directed the then-owner to reconstruct the Bridge to expand the horizontal clearance to at least 300 feet, approximately double its current width.”
United States v. New York Cent. R.R. Co., 252 F. Supp. 508 (D. Mass. 1965).
“…abandoned, it was no longer a bridge “which is used and operated for the purpose of carrying railroad traffic”. 33 U.S.C.A. § 511 .”
Union Pac. R.R. v. Kirby Inland Marine, Inc., 296 F.3d 671 (8th Cir. 2002).
· cites it 2× “” The Order to Alter was issued pursuant to the Truman-Hobbs Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 511— 524, which authorizes the United States Coast Guard to investigate whether a bridge is unreasonably obstructing navigation and to order a bridge owner to alter a bridge which does indeed…”
Seaboard Coast Line R.R. v. Coleman, 562 F.2d 1008 (5th Cir. 1977).
“Under the provisions of the 1940 Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C.A. § 511 et seq. (1970), whenever the Secretary of Transportation issues an order requiring alteration of a bridge over navigable waters to remove an obstruction to navigation, the bridge owner bears only that portion of…”
Staten Island Rapid Transit Ry. Co. v. S. T. G. Constr. Co., 421 F.2d 53 (2d Cir. 1970).
“Each contract was financed by the Railroad with federal aid under the Truman-Hobbs Act, 33 U.S.C. § 511 et seq. Contract Number One provided for the construction of piers Numbers One and Two and the bridge approaches.”
Weaver's Cove Energy, LLC v. Allen, 587 F. Supp. 2d 103 (D.D.C. 2008).
“2 Plaintiff petitions for a writ of mandamus compelling defendants to perform the duties allegedly owed to plaintiff by the Truman-Hobbs Act, 33 U.S.C. § 511 et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, 33 C.”
Seaboard Air Line R. v. Pan Maryland, 105 F. Supp. 958 (S.D. Ga. 1952).
“497 , 33 U.S.C.A. § 511 et seq. Section 2 of this Act provides “No bridge shall at any time unreasonably obstruct the free navigation of any navigable waters of the United States”.”
Dakota, Minnesota & E. R.R. Corp. v. Ingram Barge Co. (N.D. Iowa 2019).
“On June 17, 1996, the United States Coast Guard issued an Order to Alter the Bridge pursuant to the Truman-Hobbs Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 511 et seq. Ex. EE at 2. The Order to Alter declared the Bridge to be an “unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the Upper Mississippi…”
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.