Hawaiian Navigable Waters v. Hawaii

3 Citing briefs

  1. Bridgeport & Port, et al v. Bridgeport Port

    RESPONSE re Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of Bridgeport Port Authority

    Filed September 22, 2006

    The Tonnage Clause The parties also agree with the broad principle of the Tonnage Clause, expressed in the leading case, Clyde Mallory Lines v. Alabama, 296 U.S. 261, 56 S.Ct. 194 (1935): a state may, consistently with the Tonnage Clause, “charge reasonable fees in return for services rendered.” Hawaiian Navigable Waters Preservation Soc. v. State of Hawaii, 823 F. Supp. 766, 776 (D. Case 3:03-cv-00599-CFD Document 181 Filed 09/22/2006 Page 49 of 76 {NY005956;1} - 44 - Hawaii 1993) (citing Clyde Mallory) (emphasis added), aff’d, 42 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 1994). The parties’ disagreement, again, concerns the application of this principle to the facts of this case.

  2. Bridgeport & Port, et al v. Bridgeport Port

    Memorandum of Decision: Signed

    Filed July 3, 2008

    While the costs of the Port Authority’s efforts to obtain these grants are properly funded by the Passenger Fee, it is simply not accurate to state that the Fee funded these projects. -35- 838 F.2d 536, 545 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (reasonable fee to support emergency services rendered by Port inured to all who used Port because all vessels, whether or not they need rescue services, benefit from their availability); Hawaiian Navigable Waters Pres. Soc’y v. State of Hawaii, 823 F. Supp. 766, 776 (D. Haw. 1993) (reasonable mooring and anchoring fees charged for use of restroom facilities, parking, trash disposal, and security services rendered were not impermissible duty of tonnage). The Passenger Fee imposed by the Port Authority is used for the impermissible purpose of raising general revenues and for projects which do not and could not benefit the ferry passengers.

  3. Bridgeport & Port, et al v. Bridgeport Port

    Reply Memorandum in Support of re: 49

    Filed March 24, 2004

    at 20-24) involves such a dramatic disparity between the fees collected and the cost of the services provided, or provides a quantitative analysis of what is a sufficiently “ reasonable relationship” between the two. E.g., Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Authority Dist. v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 405 U.S. 707, 720, 92 S.Ct. 1349, 31 L.Ed.2d 620 (1972) (upholding passenger airport fee where the airlines challenging the fee “ failed to offer proof of excessiveness”); Hawaiian Navigable Waters Preservation Society v. State of Hawaii, 823 F. Supp 766 (D. Hawaii 1993) (state agency’s fee to defray costs of restroom, parking, trash disposal and security upheld without discussion of the relationship of the fee to the costs of the services); New Orleans Steamship Association v. Plaquemines Port, Harbor & Terminal District, 690 F. Supp. 1515 (E.D. La. 1988) (port authority’s tariff to defray costs of emergency services upheld without discussion of the relationship of tariff proceeds to the costs of the services). Case 3:03-cv-00599-CFD Document 69 Filed 03/24/2004 Page 11 of 14 { NY020856.1 } - 10 - this case, plaintiffs challenge the underlying Tariff, as well as the Surcharge.