In the Matter of the Complaint of ALLIED TOWING

Reviews
Shared by: Robyn Looneybin
Stats
views:
4
rating:
not rated
reviews:
0
posted:
2/11/2009
language:
pages:
0
In the Matter of the Complaint of ALLIED TOWING CORPORATION 478 F. Supp 398 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division October 10, 1979 Statement of the Case A barge owned by Allied Towing sank and spilled oil into the Chesapeake Bay. The United States filed a claim under Section 311 of the CWA for cleanup costs in the amount of $600,000, while the state of Virginia filed a claim under Section 62.1.34:2 of the Code of Virginia seeking $130,315.05 for a civil penalty, cleanup costs, and damage to natural resources, specifically for the loss of 4,884 waterfowl. Allied filed a Complaint seeking exoneration or limitation of liability under the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. Section 181-89 and Section 33(f)(1) of the Clean Water Act. Among Allied‟s arguments was that Federal recovery for the cleanup costs of the spill preempted the state‟s recovery. Issue Is a state claim for damages to a state‟s natural resources preempted by the Federal government's claim for “recovery costs” for cleaning up an oil spill? Holding The CWA‟s amendments to the FWPCA, “does not preempt state created liability for oil spills, and no part of Virginia‟s claim under state law for damage to its natural resources has been satisfied by the settlement between Allied and the United States.” Discussion Allied argued that, “the Clean Water Act‟s amendments made the costs of restoring or replacing natural resources, including Virginia‟s waterfowl, part of the „costs of removal‟ recoverable only by the United States, and that the states must look to the Federal Government, not the vessel owner or operator, for reimbursement for these costs.” The Court, in refusing to find that Congress meant the CWA‟s amendments to preclude a state created liability for oil spills, pointed to among other things, several Congressional records which discussed and expressly ruled against Federal preemption.

Related docs
Towing Complaint Form
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
Complaint of Great Lakes Towing Company - 5
Views: 85  |  Downloads: 0
in the matter of a complaint pursuant to the
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
matter of as
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
Non-Consensual Towing Complaint Form
Views: 2  |  Downloads: 0
complaint of canada
Views: 5  |  Downloads: 0
ORDER NO IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF
Views: 8  |  Downloads: 0
IN THE MATTER OF A Complaint By Fine Tool
Views: 5  |  Downloads: 0
IN RE THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF TOM
Views: 6  |  Downloads: 0
Other docs by Robyn Looneybi...
wg002
Views: 79  |  Downloads: 0
mc600
Views: 49  |  Downloads: 0
th100_001
Views: 49  |  Downloads: 0
Visa application form for Turkey
Views: 1246  |  Downloads: 15
tr130
Views: 54  |  Downloads: 0
sc105
Views: 43  |  Downloads: 1
nc121_001
Views: 42  |  Downloads: 0
rc300_001
Views: 61  |  Downloads: 0
Learning_landscape
Views: 306  |  Downloads: 6
Copyright and Public Doman US Jan. 07
Views: 565  |  Downloads: 18
Website Load Tester Tools Overview
Views: 1250  |  Downloads: 110
Sadiklar Plani
Views: 340  |  Downloads: 13
Dahl_ BC Tires_ Patterson Briefs
Views: 112  |  Downloads: 0
mc400_001
Views: 65  |  Downloads: 1
sum300_001
Views: 39  |  Downloads: 0