Legal Opinion
United States v. Tom-Kat Development, Inc.
District Court, D. Alaska
Decided March 26, 1985No. A84-048 CivilPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FITZGERALD, Chief Judge.
In this case, the United States of America (the government) seeks damages for defendant’s (Tom-Kat’s) alleged violations of § 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA or Act), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), brought about during Tom-Kat’s operation of a placer mine near Ferry, Alaska. On September 19, 1984, Tom-Kat filed a motion for summary judgment as to both liability and damages. On November 7, 1984, the government cross-moved for summary judgment solely on the issue of Tom-Kat’s liability.
Hearing was held on Tom-Kat’s summary judgment motion on February 19, 1985. After…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- United States v. American Trucking AssociationsSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Weinberger v. Romero-BarceloSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- City of Milwaukee v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Work v. United States Ex Rel. RivesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
- Beartooth Alliance v. Crown Butte MinesDistrict Court, D. Montana · 1995
- Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc. v. Koch Refining Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1988
- Orange Environment, Inc. v. County of OrangeDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1993
- United States Public Interest Research Group v. Atlantic Salmon of Maine, LLCDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2002
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.