UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CROSS-APPELLANT, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR,
v.
M.C.C. OF FLORIDA, INC., AND MICHAEL'S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, CROSS-APPELLEES
PER CURIAM:
The United States brought a civil action against the appellants, M.C.C. of Florida, Inc. and Michael’s Construction Company, for violating the River and Harbor Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. § 401 et seq., and the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.
The district court found against the appellants and imposed civil penalties.
On appeal, we affirmed the judgment of the district court, and rejected the appellants’ argument that it was entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. United States v. M.C.C. of Florida, Inc., 772 F. 2d 1501 (1985). On a petition by the appellants, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated our judgment, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 1968, 95 L.Ed.2d 809 (1987), remanding the case for further consideration in light of Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 1831, 95 L.Ed.2d 365 (1987). In Tull, the Court held that the Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury trial to determine liability, but not the amount of the fine, in an action by the federal government seeking civil penalties under the Clean Water Act.
In light of the factual disputes about liability raised at the initial trial of this case, the judgment of the district court must be vacated and this case must be remanded for a new trial on the issue of liability only by the district court in accordance with the Tull opinion.
. We interpret the Supreme Court’s remand to affect only that portion of our prior opinion captioned “Jury Trial,” 772 F. 2d at 1506-07. Thus, the remaining portions of our opinion are the law of the case. We remand to the district court for a jury trial on the issue of liability. If the jury returns a verdict for the United States, the district court will be guided by that part of our opinion captioned “Remedy,” 772 F. 2d at 1507-08.
REMANDED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. M.C.C. OF Fla., Inc., 967 F.2d 1559 (11th Cir. 1992)…this court interpreted the Supreme Court’s mandate to affect only that part of the M.C.C. I opinion entitled “Jury Trial,” and found the remaining portions of the prior opinion to be the “law of the case.” United States v. M.C.C. of Florida, Inc., 848 F. 2d 1133, 1134 (11th Cir.1988) (M.C.C. II). The panel thus remanded to the district court for a jury trial on the issue of liability only and stated: “If the jury returns a verdict for the United States, the district court will be guided by that part of ou…
-
Miccosukee Tribe OF Indians OF Florida v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 280 F.3d 1364 (11th Cir. 2002)…itting system of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1344. See United States v. M.C.C. of Fla., Inc., 772 F. 2d 1501, 1505-06 (11th Cir.1985), vacated on other grounds by 481 U.S. 1034, 107 S.Ct. 1968, 95 L.Ed.2d 809 (1987), reinstated in relevant part on remand, 848 F. 2d 1133 (11th Cir.1988). . As noted above, the Water District concentrates on the fact that S-9 is not the original source of the pollutants in the water which it conveys. For pollutants to be from a point source, the point source does not necessarily hav…
-
Rybachek v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 904 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1990)…diment [*1286] and redepositing it on sea bottom by boat propellers constitutes an addition of pollutants), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 481 U.S. 1034, 107 S.Ct. 1968, 95 L.Ed.2d 809 (1987), readopted in part and remanded on other grounds, 848 F. 2d 1133 (11th Cir.1988) (interpreting Supreme Court’s action as affecting only a different part of the original opinion), reh’g granted in other part, 863 F. 2d 802 (11th Cir.1989). We will follow the lead of the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits and defer to the…
Authorities Cited
- Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1987)
- United States v. Pewee Coal Co., Inc., 341 U.S. 114 (U.S. 1951)
- United States v. M.C.C. OF Fla., Inc., 772 F.2d 1501 (11th Cir. 1985)