1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 614 F.2d
  5. 614 F.2d 474 (1980)
 

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND v. ALEXANDER

No. 79-2684.

614 F.2d 474 (1980)

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC., Committee for Leaving the Environment of America Natural, Glenn H. Clemmer, G. Randall Grace, and F. Glenn Liming, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Clifford R. ALEXANDER, Secretary, Dept. of the Army, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Dept. of the Army, and Major General John Morris, Chief of Engineers, Dept. of the Army, Defendants-Appellees, Tombigbee River Valley Water Management District, Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development Authority, State of Alabama and Tombigbee Valley Development Authority, Intervening Defendants-Appellees. LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Clifford R. ALEXANDER, Secretary, Dept. of the Army, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Dept. of the Army, and Major General John Morris, Chief of Engineers, Dept. of the Army, Defendants-Appellees, Tombigbee River Valley Water Management District, Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development Authority, State of Alabama, and Tombigbee Valley Development Authority, Intervening Defendants-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Rehearing and Rehearing Denied April 22, 1980.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Jon T. Brown, Stephen E. Roady, Washington, D. C., James T. B. Tripp, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Glenn Whitaker, Lawrence Moloney, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for Alexander and Morris.

Pogue & Pace, Ralph E. Pogue, Aberdeen, Miss., for Water Management Dist.

Hunter M. Gholson, Columbus, Miss., for Waterway Development Authority.

William T. Stephens, Asst. Atty. Gen., Montgomery, Ala., for State of Ala.

H. M. Ray, U. S. Atty., Oxford, Miss., for the U. S.

David Webb, Mobile Dist., Mobile, Ala., for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Before GEWIN, RUBIN and SAM D. JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied April 22, 1980.

ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge:

This attempt to halt the construction of a federally financed waterway because the width of the waterway exceeds the size authorized by Congress was dismissed by the district court on the basis that it was barred by laches — delay in presenting the claim resulting in prejudice to the defendants. We hold that laches was an appropriate defense, that the factual findings...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases