American River Transportation v. United States, Corp of Eng
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
1Dissent
RILEY, Chief Judge,
dissenting.. Because I agree with the district court’s well-reasoned decision, I respectfully dissent.
A. Injunction
The majority correctly recognizes “that the government need not appear in [a] limitation proceeding at all to assert its claims when those claims are not subject to the Limitation Act,” ante at 844, but incorrectly implies that the government’s appearance in this limitation proceeding was, therefore, futile. The actual language used in the limitation injunction issued in this case states:
IT IS ... ORDERED that notice be given to all persons asserting any claims…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. KrogerSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.