[Authorization of flood-control work.] For controlling the floods of the Mississippi River and continuing its improvement from the Head of the Passes to the mouth of the Ohio River the Secretary of the Army is empowered, authorized, and directed to carry on continuously, by hired labor or otherwise, the plans of the Mississippi River Commission, prior to March 3, 1923, or thereafter adopted, to be paid for as appropriations may from time to time be made by law.
[Allotments for improvement of watercourses connected with Mississippi River.] The watercourses connected with the Mississippi River to such extent as may be necessary to exclude the flood waters from the upper limits of any delta basin, together with the Ohio River from its mouth to the mouth of the Cache River, may, in the discretion of said commission, receive allotments for improvements under way March 1, 1917, or thereafter to be undertaken.
[Maintenance of levees constructed for flood control.] Upon the completion of any levee constructed for flood control under authority of this section, said levee shall be turned over to the levee district protected thereby for maintenance thereafter; but for all other purposes the United States shall retain such control over the same as it may have the right to exercise upon such completion.
Notes of Decisions
In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches, 696 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2012).
“4 The court found that neither the Flood Control Act of 1928 (“FCA”), 33 U.S.C. § 702 , nor the discretionary-function exception (“DFE”) to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.”
In Re Katrina Canal Breaches Consol. Litig., 577 F. Supp. 2d 802 (E.D. La. 2008).
· cites it 2× “10378); 2) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication Concerning Defendant Unit *804 ed States’ Second Affirmative Defense of Immunity Under 33 U.S.C. § 702 (Doc. 10337); and 3) United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss Lafarge North America Inc.”
Kennedy v. United States, 643 F. Supp. 1072 (E.D.N.Y 1986).
· cites it 2× “33 U.S.C. § 702 provides, in pertinent part, “ .”
Nicholson v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 605 (Fed. Cl. 2007).
“See 33 U.S.C. § 702 (c) (2006) (“no liability of any kind shall attach to or rest upon the United States for any damage from or by floods or flood waters at any place”).”
Elden v. United States, 223 Ct. Cl. 239 (Ct. Cl. 1980).
“The alleged effect of 33 U.S.C. § 702 (c) in immunizing defendant from liability to plaintiffs also can be left to future cases.”
Big Oak Farms, Inc. v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 48 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
“The Project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1928, 33 U.S.C. § 702 et seq., in response to unprecedented flooding of the Mississippi River.”
In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches, 673 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2012).
“4 The court found that neither the Flood Control Act of 1928 (“FCA”), 33 U.S.C. § 702 , nor the discretionary-function exception (“DFE”) to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.”
Clark v. United States, 109 F. Supp. 213 (D. Or. 1952).
“33 U.S.C.A. § 702 (c). 40 . The Tort Claims Act does not by its terms repeal § 702(c).”
Ireland v. Suffolk Cnty. of New York, 242 F. Supp. 2d 178 (E.D.N.Y 2003).
“As such, the Court does not reach the issue of whether the Flood Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 702 (c), applies to the facts of the instant case.”
Bierer-Carter v. United States, 806 F. Supp. 2d 1245 (S.D. Fla. 2011).
“After reviewing the legislative history of 33 U.S.C. § 702 and interpreting the language of the statute, the Court concluded that the United States should receive immunity under such circumstances.”
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Westphal, 116 F. Supp. 2d 49 (D.D.C. 2000).
· cites it 2× “See 33 U.S.C. § 702 , et seq. The original project was designed to reduce headwater flooding in the Big Sunflower River Basin by improving main streams so as to provide better outlets for the drainage systems.”
Dalrymple v. Grand River Dam Auth., 932 F. Supp. 1311 (N.D. Okla. 1996).
“Section 3 of the Flood Control Act of 1928 addresses the specific issue of liability for the federal government’s flood control activities.”
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.