33 U.S.C. § 702e
Maps for project; preparation
Subject to the approval of the heads of the several executive departments concerned, the Secretary of the Army, on the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, may engage the services and assistance of the National Ocean Survey, the United States Geological Survey, or other mapping agencies of the Government, in the preparation of maps required in furtherance of this project, and funds to pay for such services may be allotted from appropriations made under authority of sections 702a and 702g of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1929–2015 · leading case: United States v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 1432 (E.D. Cal. 1995).
United States v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 1432 (E.D. Cal. 1995). “The United States advances two main arguments in support of its motion: (1) all claims are barred by section 3 of the Flood Control Act of 1928 (33 U.S.C. § 702e); and (2) the CERCLA claims regarding the Spring Creek Dam are barred by sovereign immunity because the dam serves a…”
Mendez v. United States, 121 Fed. Cl. 370 (Fed. Cl. 2015). “2001) (affirming this court’s jurisdiction over a breach of contract claim, because no “unambiguous evidence in the text or legislative history of [the Flood Control Act of 1928, 33 U.S.C. § 702e (2006) showed] that Congress had ‘withdrawn the Tucker Act grant of jurisdiction’…”
Lunsford v. United States, 570 F.2d 221 (8th Cir. 1977). “The plaintiffs moved to strike certain defenses raised by the United States including the defense that the United States is not liable for flood damages under § 3 of the Flood Control Act of 1928, 33 U.S.C. § 702e. The District Court dismissed the action as a class action and…”
Pueblo De Cochiti v. United States, 647 F. Supp. 538 (D.N.M. 1986). “The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that 33 U.S.C. § 702e provided immunity. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that “If the plaintiff could prove damage to his farm as a result of the dam’s operation as a recreational…”
U.S. Home Corp. v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 401 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “The holding in American International is in accord with several precedential decisions which have affirmed this court’s Tucker Act jurisdiction over contract claims, despite the fact that the subject matter of the contracts at issue might otherwise have been governed by…”
Wolfe v. Hurley, 46 F.2d 515 (W.D. La. 1930). “Since it appears that the Secretary of War, Board of Engineers, and Mississippi *520 River Commission are relying upon the levee board to provide the rights of way, under the requirements of section 3 of the Mood Control Act (33 USCA § 702e), and assert that the levee will not…”
Respess v. United States, 586 F. Supp. 861 (E.D. La. 1984). “9 FLOOD CONTROL ACT The government asserts that the Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Flood Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 702e, which provides in pertinent part: No liability of any kind shall attach or rest upon the United States for any damage from or by floods or flood waters…”
Powers v. United States, 787 F. Supp. 1397 (M.D. Ala. 1992). “§ 2680 (h); (3) the United States is immune from suit for any damages caused by flood waters, 33 U.S.C. § 702e; and (4) the United States cannot be subject to liability for plaintiffs’ damages because a private individual would not be liable under analogous circumstances, 28 U.”
Kincaid v. United States, 35 F.2d 235 (W.D. La. 1929). “” In section 3 (33 USCA § 702e) it was further provided that no money should be spent under the act “until the states or levee districts have given assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of War that they will (a) maintain all flood control works after their completion, except…”
Dalrymple v. Grand River Dam Auth., 932 F. Supp. 1311 (N.D. Okla. 1996). “” 33 U.S.C. § 702e. It does not extend that protection to licensees, nor does it even allude to the licensee’s role in the flood control process.”
Reese v. South Florida Water Mgmt. Dist., 59 F.3d 1128 (11th Cir. 1995). “The United States moved to dismiss both cases based on governmental immunity pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 702e and the district court granted the motion, remanding the state case back to state court.”
Cantrell v. United States, 889 F. Supp. 1006 (E.D. Ky. 1995). “This ease presents the question whether the Flood Control Act’s immunity provision in 33 U.S.C. § 702e, which provides that “[n]o 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,” bars recovery…”
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.