Legal Opinion
United States v. Charles A. Eidson, Sandra A. Eidson
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided March 31, 1997No. 94-2330PublishedCited by 41 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KRAVITCH, Senior Circuit Judge:
The Clean Water Act (“CWA” or “the Act”) prohibits the addition of any pollutant into navigable waters from any point source. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1362(12). It defines “navigable waters” to mean “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). The primary issue before this court is whether the drainage ditch into which appellants’ company discharged industrial wastewater was a “navigable water” within the meaning of § 1362(7).
I. Background
Cherokee Trading Partners, Inc. (“Cherokee”) was a Delaware corporation with its…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Kolender v. LawsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- United States v. William R. Lambert, Lucille H. Lambert, and Richard Angel, Individually and D/B/A Southern Seafood Co. Of FloridaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983
- United States v. PaccioneCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Rapanos v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Quebell P. Parker v. Scrap Metal ProcessorsCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2004
- United States v. David Phillips, United States of America v. David PhillipsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- United States v. Charles W. Walker, Sr.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2007
- United States v. RobisonCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2007
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.