600 F.2d 725 (8th Cir. 1979), 79-1031, Inland Oil and Transport Co. v. United States

Docket Nº79-1031.
Citation600 F.2d 725
Party NameINLAND OIL AND TRANSPORT CO., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Clifford L. Alexander, Secretary of the Army of the United States, Leon McKinney, District Engineer of the St. Louis District Corps of Engineers and James Fogilphol, James Stewart and Vernon Drew, Appellees.
Case DateJune 29, 1979
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Page 725

600 F.2d 725 (8th Cir. 1979)

INLAND OIL AND TRANSPORT CO., Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES of America, United States Army Corps of

Engineers, Clifford L. Alexander, Secretary of the Army of

the United States, Leon McKinney, District Engineer of the

St. Louis District Corps of Engineers and James Fogilphol,

James Stewart and Vernon Drew, Appellees.

No. 79-1031.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

June 29, 1979

Submitted May 17, 1979.

Page 726

Paul R. Hales, of Goldstein & Price, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant; Gary T. Sacks, St. Louis, Mo., on brief.

David V. Hutchinson, Atty., Torts Branch, Civ. Div., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee; Barbara Allen Babcock, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., Robert D. Kingsland, U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., and William Kanter, Atty., Washington, D. C., on brief.

Before LAY, BRIGHT and HENLEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Inland Oil and Transport Co. (Inland) brought this action against the United States, the Army Corps of Engineers, and a number of individual defendants in the district court 1 to enjoin the continued enforcement of a Special Notice to Navigation Interests issued by the St. Louis District of the Army Corps of Engineers on March 16, 1977. Inland also asked the district court to declare the procedures established by the Special Notice to be illegal

Page 727

and to award Inland actual and punitive damages.

The effect of the Special Notice was to establish a locking precedence procedure for towboats and barges using the main locking chamber of Locks and Dam No. 26 on the Mississippi River near Alton, Illinois. In order to keep its place on the waiting list for transit through the main chamber, a tugboat had to be willing to assist other vessels using the locks. This assistance was required to be furnished without compensation or indemnification for loss and a boat which failed to follow this procedure lost its place in line. A smaller, auxiliary chamber was not subject to this locking precedence procedure.

Inland, which is in the business of transporting petroleum and petroleum by-products on the Mississippi River by means of barges, refused to allow its towboats to render assistance as required by the procedure. As a result it alleged that its boats suffered delays and incurred other additional expenses in using the locks on three occasions. The district court considered the case on cross motions for summary judgment and held that the discontinuance of the procedure had eliminated the necessity for injunctive and declaratory relief. It also found that Inland had not sustained any damages and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. 2 We affirm.

Inland argues that the district court erred in holding that its claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were rendered moot by the discontinuance of the procedure. Although the district court did raise the possibility that Inland's claims were moot, it is clear from the unpublished memorandum opinion and the authorities cited therein that the district court considered these...

To continue reading

Request your trial
275 practice notes
  • 564 F.Supp. 34 (W.D.Mo. 1982), 80-0587CV-W-0, Grand Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit Western District of Missouri
    • December 21, 1982
    ...to the party opposing the motion. Kuehn v. Garcia, 608 F.2d 1143, 1146 (8th Cir. 1979); Inland Oil and Transport Co. v. United States, 600 F.2d 725, 728 (8th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 991, 100 S.Ct. 522, 62 L.Ed.2d 420 (1979). Where the moving party establishes beyond controversy t......
  • 635 F.Supp. 851 (W.D.Ark. 1986), 85-2044, Robertson v. White
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit Western District of Arkansas
    • June 10, 1986
    ...Amendment right to a jury trial where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Cf. Inland Oil & Transport Co. v. U.S., 600 F.2d 725 (8th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 991, 100 S.Ct. 522, 62 L.Ed.2d 420 The question becomes, then, whether White or Goradia are "officers......
  • 17 F.Supp.2d 867 (W.D.Ark. 1998), 97-6130, Ray v. Weyerhaeuser
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit Western District of Arkansas
    • August 19, 1998
    ...so that no person will be improperly deprived of a trial of disputed factual issues. Inland Oil & Transport Co. v. United States, 600 F.2d 725 (8th Cir. 1979). It has noted that this is especially true in discrimination cases because they often turn on inferences rather than direct evid......
  • 57 F.Supp.2d 729 (W.D.Ark. 1999), Civ. 98-3088, Green v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit Western District of Arkansas
    • July 13, 1999
    ...preventing the trial of cases in which no genuine issue of material fact remains." Inland Oil & Transport Co. v. United States, 600 F.2d 725, 728 (8th Cir.1979). Thus, the party opposing summary judgment may not rest on the pleadings, but must set forth facts that show there is a g......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
275 cases
  • 564 F.Supp. 34 (W.D.Mo. 1982), 80-0587CV-W-0, Grand Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit Western District of Missouri
    • December 21, 1982
    ...to the party opposing the motion. Kuehn v. Garcia, 608 F.2d 1143, 1146 (8th Cir. 1979); Inland Oil and Transport Co. v. United States, 600 F.2d 725, 728 (8th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 991, 100 S.Ct. 522, 62 L.Ed.2d 420 (1979). Where the moving party establishes beyond controversy t......
  • 635 F.Supp. 851 (W.D.Ark. 1986), 85-2044, Robertson v. White
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit Western District of Arkansas
    • June 10, 1986
    ...Amendment right to a jury trial where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Cf. Inland Oil & Transport Co. v. U.S., 600 F.2d 725 (8th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 991, 100 S.Ct. 522, 62 L.Ed.2d 420 The question becomes, then, whether White or Goradia are "officers......
  • 17 F.Supp.2d 867 (W.D.Ark. 1998), 97-6130, Ray v. Weyerhaeuser
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit Western District of Arkansas
    • August 19, 1998
    ...so that no person will be improperly deprived of a trial of disputed factual issues. Inland Oil & Transport Co. v. United States, 600 F.2d 725 (8th Cir. 1979). It has noted that this is especially true in discrimination cases because they often turn on inferences rather than direct evid......
  • 57 F.Supp.2d 729 (W.D.Ark. 1999), Civ. 98-3088, Green v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit Western District of Arkansas
    • July 13, 1999
    ...preventing the trial of cases in which no genuine issue of material fact remains." Inland Oil & Transport Co. v. United States, 600 F.2d 725, 728 (8th Cir.1979). Thus, the party opposing summary judgment may not rest on the pleadings, but must set forth facts that show there is a g......
  • Request a trial to view additional results