State of New Jersey v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 09 December 1935 |
| Citation | 296 U.S. 259,80 L.Ed. 214,56 S.Ct. 188 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CITY OF NEW YORK. No. ___ |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On December 4, 1933, this Court 'ordered, adjudged, and decreed:
'1. On and after July 1, 1934, the defendant, the city of New York, its employees and agents, and all persons assuming to act under its authority, be, and they are hereby, enjoined from dumping, or procuring or suffering to be dumped, any garbage or refuse, or other noxious, offensive or injurious matter, into the ocean, or waters of the United States, off the coast of New Jersey, and from otherwise defiling or polluting said waters and the shores or beaches thereof or procuring them to be defiled or polluted as aforesaid.
290 U.S. 237, 54 S.Ct. 136, 137, 78 L.Ed. 291.
October 7, 1935, defendant applied for leave to file a petition for construction or modification of the decree. The purpose of the petition is to obtain a ruling that the dumping of sludge gathered by sedimentation and free of any matter capable of floating is not a violation of the decree. The petition states that the sludge consists of about 90 per cent. water and about 10 per cent. finely divided solids that settle to the bottom of the water, and in substance that no floating matter is included in the sledge; that defendant takes to sea about 4,000 tons of sludge per month and dumps it not less than ten miles from shore; and that the amounts dumped by defendant have ranged between one-twentieth and one-sixth of those dumped contemporaneously at the same place by the plaintiff or its political subdivisions.
The petition prays this court to direct the state of New Jersey to show cause why (1) a ruling should not be made to the effect that the dumping of sludge, free from any matter capable of floating, at places not less than 10 miles from any shore, is not a violation of the decree, or (2) in the alternative, why this court should not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Town of Hudson
...Grew v. Breed, 12 Metc. 363,46 Am.Dec. 687;Beacon Oil Co. v. Maniatis, 284 Mass. 574, 577, 188 N.E. 386;State of New Jersey v. City of New York, 296 U.S. 259, 56 S.Ct. 188, 80 L.Ed. 214. If persons constituting a large class should be made defendants, the practice should follow Reynolds v. ......
-
Julius Hyman & Co. v. Velsicol Corp., 16084
...is in the trial court upon proper application, but the injunction here is not void for indefiniteness. State of New Jersey v. New York City, 296 U.S. 259, 56 S.Ct. 188, 80 L.Ed. 214; Regal Knitware Company v. Board, 324 U.S. 9, 65 S.Ct. 478, 482, 80 L.Ed. 661, 667; In re United Gas Corporat......
-
Commonwealth v. Town of Hudson
... ... existence of the present state of war," such order being ... based on the danger of pollution of the ... existence of the present state of war, it is necessary for a ... city, town, district or water company maintaining a water ... supply to ... Selectmen of Norwood v. New York" & New England Railroad, ... 161 Mass. 259 , ... [315 Mass. 341] ... \xC2" ... States, 126 F.2d 370, 380; S. C. 135 F.2d 54. In New ... Jersey v. New York City, 290 U.S. 237, 240, a ... municipality was required to ... ...
-
Regal Knitwear Co v. National Labor Relations Board
...injunction, they may petition the court granting it for a modification or construction of the order. Cf. State of New Jersey v. New York City, 296 U.S. 259, 56 S.Ct. 188, 80 L.Ed. 214. While such relief would be in the sound discretion of the court, we think courts would not be apt to withh......