§Why CasetextPricing

Arizona, State of v. International Boundary And Water Commission et al

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Count 9

4 Cited authorities

  1. Williamsburg Wax Museum, Inc. v. Historic Figures, Inc.

    810 F.2d 243 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 185 times
    Holding that a November 1984 motion filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) to amend a September 1982 district court judgment was untimely, even though this court's decision on appeal had been entered in February 1984 and certiorari denied in October 1984

  2. Sierra Club v. El Paso Gold Mines, Inc

    421 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. 2005)   Cited 97 times
    Holding that a discharge that passed through a 2.5-mile tunnel between mine shaft and navigable water could be covered under CWA

  3. Community Ass'n for Restoration v. Bosma Dairy

    305 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 92 times
    Holding that where additional violations listed in the complaint originated from the same source, the CAFO dairies, deposited the same waste material, manure, into clearly identifiable navigable waters of the U.S., a single drain ditch, that they constituted a single violation that repeated over a span of time and met the CWA notice requirements

  4. Section 277d-12 - Expenditures for flood fighting, rescue operations, repairs or restoration of flood control or sanitation works threatened or destroyed by floodwaters of Rio Grande, Colorado, or Tijuana Rivers

    22 U.S.C. § 277d-12

    On and after June 20, 1956, in addition to the funds available under the appropriation "Rio Grande emergency flood protection", the United States Commissioner is authorized to expend from any appropriation available to the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, American Section, such sums as may be necessary for prosecution of emergency flood fighting and rescue operations, repairs or restoration of any flood control or sanitation works threatened or destroyed by floodwaters