Oyster Shell Products Corp., Inc. v. United States

197 F.2d 1022, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2723
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 24, 1952
Docket13857_1
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 197 F.2d 1022 (Oyster Shell Products Corp., Inc. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Oyster Shell Products Corp., Inc. v. United States, 197 F.2d 1022, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2723 (5th Cir. 1952).

Opinion

RIVES, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment 1 dismissing the appellant’s so-called counterclaim filed in a condemnation proceeding instituted by the United States. Under 33 U.S. C..A. §§ 702a-ll and 702d, the Secretary of the Army was authorized to cause proceedings to be instituted for the acquirement by condemnation of any lands, easements, or rights of way which, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Engineers, are needed in the development and construction of the Mor-ganza Spillway and the Atchafalaya Flood-way for the diversion of waters from the Mississippi River. The appellant’s counterclaim insists that there should have been included in the petition for condemnation filed by the United States a description of all of the property belonging to appellant and described in its counterclaim, included and embraced in the actual taking in the construction of the Floodway; that practically all of appellant’s properties have been dammed into the channel of the Flood-way. The district court held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the counterclaim, because it sets up a claim against the United States in a manner and in a court in which the United States has not consented to be sued. We are in agreement with the views of the district court and do not consider it necessary to expand upon its opinion.

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. The able opinion of the district court is reported in U. S. v. Nine Acres of Land, etc., 100 F.Supp. 378. The court determined that there was no just reason for delay and directo:! the entry of a final judgment under Rule 54(b), Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C.A.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Ledford
Tenth Circuit, 1999
United States v. 101.88 Acres of Land
616 F.2d 762 (Fifth Circuit, 1980)
State, Department of Highways v. Mouledous
199 So. 2d 185 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1967)
United States v. Certain Land in Cook
248 F. Supp. 681 (D. Minnesota, 1965)
Kincade v. Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation
276 F.2d 929 (Fifth Circuit, 1960)
Kincade v. C & L Rural Electric Cooperative Corp.
276 F.2d 929 (Fifth Circuit, 1960)
Rieser v. Baltimore Ohio Railroad Company
224 F.2d 198 (Second Circuit, 1955)
Rieser v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
224 F.2d 198 (Second Circuit, 1955)
United States v. Patterson
206 F.2d 345 (Fifth Circuit, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
197 F.2d 1022, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oyster-shell-products-corp-inc-v-united-states-ca5-1952.