Legal Opinion

Highview Engineering, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

District Court, W.D. Kentucky

Decided March 30, 2012No. Civil Action No. 3:08CV-647-SPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHARLES R. SIMPSON, III, Judge.

This action involves a procedure known as “mitigation banking,” an environmental preservation activity supposedly designed to protect the nation’s wetlands. In accordance with the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) requires that persons or business whose activities will adversely impact wetlands in one place compensate for the damage by establishing a new wetland elsewhere that will replace any lost biological functions. “Mitigation banking” is one way a person or entity can…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
  4. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. Bohn Aluminum & Brass Corporation v. Storm King CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1962

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Phillips v. MabusDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
  2. Phillips v. SpencerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2019
  3. Afghan Yar International Construction Company Limited v. US Department of StateDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2021
  4. Phillips v. MabusDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2019
  5. Roysdon v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. Texas · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API