U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 19B— WATER RESOURCES PLANNING

42 U.S.C. § 1962

Congressional statement of policy

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

In order to meet the rapidly expanding demands for water throughout the Nation, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to encourage the conservation, development, and utilization of water and related land resources of the United States on a comprehensive and coordinated basis by the Federal Government, States, localities, and private enterprise with the cooperation of all affected Federal agencies, States, local governments, individuals, corporations, business enterprises, and others concerned.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84 (1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84 (1985). · cites it 2× “III); 42 U. S. C. § 1962 (d)-17(b); 42 U. S. C.”
Izaak Walton League of Am. v. Marsh, 655 F.2d 346 (D.C. Cir. 1981). · cites it 3× “Although appellants raised a variety of claims, their objections were, in essence, that: (1) the cost-benefit analysis prepared by the Corps prior to receiving congressional approval of the project violated the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1962 et seq.…”
Env't Def. Fund, Inc. v. Alexander, 501 F. Supp. 742 (N.D. Miss. 1980). · cites it 2× “Count III specifically charges defendants have violated the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1962 et seq., and the regulations promulgated by Water Resources Council entitled Principles and Standards for Planning Water and Land Related Resources, 38 Fed.”
Sierra Club, a Corp. v. Robert F. Froehlke, Sec'y of the Army, 534 F.2d 1289 (8th Cir. 1976). “42 U.S.C. § 1962 et. seq. 8 . 16 U.S.C. § 4601-12 et.”
Xiangyuan (Sue) Zhu v. Countrywide Realty, Co., 165 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (D. Kan. 2001). “§ 1982 (Count I); committed fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation during negotiation of a real estate contract, violated Kansas consumer protection statutes, breached real estate brokers’ duties, negligently performed voluntary undertakings, maliciously prosecuted her,…”
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 480 F. Supp. 980 (D.D.C. 1979). · cites it 3× “Specifically, defendants sought a ruling on the legitimacy of plaintiffs’ claims under the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1962 et seq., the regulations promulgated pursuant to that Act, 33 C.”
Jackson v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2001). “§ 1981 (Count I); three federal RICO violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1962 (b), (c) and (d) (Counts II through IV); three Florida RICO counts under Fla.”
Env't Def. Fund Inc. v. Johnson, 476 F. Supp. 126 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). · cites it 2× “tions concerned with the conservation of the nation’s scenic and natural resources, commenced this action for declaratory and injunctive relief alleging that the defendants, the North Atlantic Division of the State Army Corps of Engineers and several of its officers, prepared…”
Perlman v. Zell, 938 F. Supp. 1327 (N.D. Ill. 1996). “laint using several broad approaches, arguing that: (1) the claims are barred by the statute of limitations; (2) Perl-man has not adequately alleged the necessary predicate acts for RICO; (3) the allegations do not show the necessary pattern of racketeering; and Perlman has…”
Libby Rod & Gun Club v. Poteat, 457 F. Supp. 1177 (D. Mont. 1978). “, and regulations adopted thereunder; (3) the Water Resources Planning Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1962 and the Water Resources Council “Principles and Standards”, 38 F.”
Env't Def. Fund, Inc. v. Johnson, 629 F.2d 239 (2d Cir. 1980). · cites it 2× “” The Act authorized the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to prepare plans pursuant to the Water Resources Planning (“WRP”) Act [ 42 U.S.C. § 1962 et seq.] to meet the long range water supply needs of the northeastern United States, in cooperation…”
Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Emp. Resource Mgmt., Inc., 176 F. Supp. 2d 510 (D.S.C. 2001). “Plaintiff also asserted federal question causes of action against defendants Attaway, Ber-man, King, Rand, and Yountz (“Individual Defendants”) for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1962 (a) and (c) of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”).”
Show all 18 citing cases →
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.