U.S. v. M.C.C. of Florida, Inc., 84-5738
| Decision Date | 07 July 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-5738,84-5738 |
| Citation | 848 F.2d 1133 |
| Parties | , 18 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,080 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulations, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. M.C.C. OF FLORIDA, INC., and Michael's Construction Company, Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
James T. Hendrick, Key West, Fla., Thomas A. Harris, Milligan, Hooper, Harris & Barry, Chattanooga, Tenn., for defendants-appellants, cross-appellees.
Stanley Marcus, U.S. Atty., Joseph R. Buchanan, Michael J. Mitchell, Asst. U.S. Attys., Miami, Fla., Paul R. Ezatoff, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., David E. Dearing, Environmental Defense Sec. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Maria A. Iizuka, Dept. of Justice, Land & Nat. Res. Div., David C. Shilton, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee, cross-appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before CLARK, Circuit Judge, HENDERSON *, Senior Circuit Judge
and HOFFMAN **, Senior District Judge.
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
The United States brought a civil action against the appellants, M.C.C. of Florida, Inc. and Michael's Construction Company, for violating the River and Harbor Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 401 et seq., and the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq. The district court found against the appellants and imposed civil penalties. On appeal, we affirmed the judgment of the district court, and rejected the appellants' argument that it was entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. United States v. M.C.C. of Florida, Inc., 772 F.2d 1501 (1985). On a petition by the appellants, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated our judgment, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 1968, 95 L.Ed.2d 809 (1987), remanding the case for further consideration in light of Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 1831, 95 L.Ed.2d 365 (1987). In Tull, the Court held that the Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury trial to determine liability, but not the amount of the fine, in an action by the federal government seeking civil penalties under the Clean Water Act. In light of the factual disputes about liability raised at the initial trial of this case, the judgment of the district court must be vacated and this case must be remanded for a new trial on the issue of liability only by the district court in accordance with the Tull opinion.
We interpret the Supreme Court's remand to affect only that portion of our prior opinion captioned "Jury Trial," 772 F.2d at 1506-07. Thus, the remaining portions of our opinion are the law of the case. We remand to the district court for a jury trial on the issue of liability. If...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Wilson
... ... Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121, 133, 106 S.Ct. 455, 462, 88 L.Ed.2d 419 ... 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997); Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996); ... regulate nonnavigable waters to resolve the issue before us. The regulation challenged here, 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a)(3) ... ...
-
Rybachek v. U.S. E.P.A.
...remanded on other grounds, 481 U.S. 1034, 107 S.Ct. 1968, 95 L.Ed.2d 809 (1987), readopted in part and remanded on other grounds, 848 F.2d 1133 (11th Cir.1988) (interpreting Supreme Court's action as affecting only a different part of the original opinion), reh'g granted in other part, 863 ......
-
National Min. Ass'n v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
...Cir.1985), vacated on other grounds, 481 U.S. 1034, 107 S.Ct. 1968, 95 L.Ed.2d 809 (1987), readopted in relevant part on remand, 848 F.2d 1133 (11th Cir.1988), finding instead that a construction company had displaced dredged spoil from the bottom of a waterway "onto the adjacent sea grass ......
-
US v. Sinclair Oil Co., CV 88-278-BLG-JFB.
...vacated on other grounds, 481 U.S. 1034, 107 S.Ct. 1968, 95 L.Ed.2d 809 (1987), "redeposit" analysis readopted on remand, 848 F.2d 1133 (11th Cir.1988) and 863 F.2d 802 (11th Cir.1989). In M.C.C. of Florida, the Court found that redeposit of sediment, which was dredged by the propellers of ......
-
Can Wetland Property Be Developed? Regulated Activities and Statutory Exemptions
...of pine plantations.” Id . 50. 772 F.2d 1501, 15 ELR 21091 (11th Cir. 1985), vacated on other grounds , 481 U.S. 1034 (1987), on remand , 848 F.2d 1133, 18 ELR 21080 (11th Cir. 1988) and 863 F.2d 802 (11th Cir. 1989). After 1988, the case addressed the right to a jury trial on the issue of ......
-
List of Case Citations
...v. M.C.C. of Florida, Inc. 772 F.2d 1501, 15 ELR 21091 (11th Cir. 1985), vacated on other grounds , 481 U.S. 1034 (1987), on remand , 848 F.2d 1133, 18 ELR 21080 (11th Cir. 1988), reh’g denied per curiam , 863 F.2d 802 (11th Cir. 1989) ................................................... 44 ......
-
Enforcement
...Co. , 146 F.3d 1241, 28 ELR 21334 (10th Cir. 1998). 100. 481 U.S. 412, 17 ELR 20667 (1987). 101. United States v. M.C.C. of Fla., Inc., 848 F.2d 1133, 18 ELR 21080 (11th Cir. 1988), reh’g denied per curiam , 863 F.2d 802 (11th Cir. 1989). 102. See , e . g ., United States v. Hobbs, 736 F. S......
-
Can Wetland Property Be Developed? Regulated Activities and Statutory Exemptions
...of pine plantations.” Id. 52. 772 F.2d 1501, 15 ELR 21091 (11th Cir. 1985), vacated on other grounds , 481 U.S. 1034 (1987), on remand , 848 F.2d 1133, 18 ELR 21080 (11th Cir. 1988) and 863 F.2d 802 (11th Cir. 1989). After 1988, the case addressed the right to a jury trial on the issue of l......