Legal Opinion

Dixon v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided February 5, 1945No. 45928PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWhaley, Chief Justice

The plaintiff is suing for damages to his oyster beds caused by the dredging operations authorized by the defendant. Notice of the dredging was duly given by the War Department to the plaintiff and to the Commissioner of Fisheries of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The dredging was completed by defendant’s contractor. The oyster beds were traversed and as little injury done to plaintiff’s oyster interests as was possible, consistent with the nature and amount of dredging performed. The District Engineer recommended to the Chief of Engineers the payment of plaintiff’s claim in the sum of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. F. Mansfield & Sons Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1941
  2. Townsley v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1944
  3. Bailey v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1926
  4. Schroeder Besse Oyster Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1942
  5. Andrew Radel Oyster Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1934

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Petrovich v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1970
  2. Petrovich v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API