NEW JERSEY
v.
NEW YORK CITY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
New Jersey sought enforcement of a prior Supreme Court decree prohibiting New York City from dumping garbage and refuse into waters off the New Jersey coast, while New York City petitioned to modify the decree to permit the dumping of non-floating sewage sludge at least ten miles offshore. The Court granted New York City's petition and ruled that dumping settled sludge free of floating matter did not violate the original decree, finding that the facts alleged did not constitute a violation.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Decree, announced by
Mr. Justice Butler. On December 4, 1933, this Court “ ordered, adjudged and decreed:
“ 1. On and after July 1, 1934, the defendant, The City of New York, its employees and agents, and all persons assuming to act under its authority, be and they are hereby enjoined from dumping, or procuring or suffering to be dumped, any garbage or refuse, or other noxious, offensive or injurious matter, into the ocean, or waters of the United States, off the coast of New Jersey, and from otherwise defiling or polluting said waters and the shores or beaches thereof or procuring them to be defiled or polluted as aforesaid.
“ 2. If defendant shall fail to comply with paragraph 1 of this decree by July 1, 1934, it shall pay to plaintiff $5,000.00 a day until it does so comply; such payments however are to be without prejudice to any other relief to which complainant may be found entitled.” 290 U. S. 237.
October 7, 1935, defendant applied for leave to file a petition for construction or modification of the decree. The purpose of the petition is to obtain a ruling that the. dumping of sludge gathered by sedimentation and free ofj any matter capable of floating is not a violation of the decree. The petition states that the sludge consists of about 90 per cent, water and about 10 per cent, finely divided solids that settle to the bottom of the water, and in substance that no floating matter is included in the sludge; that defendant takes to sea about 4,000 tons of sludge per month and dumps it not less than ten miles from shore, and that the amounts dumped by defendant have ranged between one-twentieth and one-sixth of those dumped contemporaneously at the same place by the plaintiff or its political subdivisions.
The petition prays this Court to direct the State of New Jersey to show cause why (1) a ruling should not be made to the effect that the dumping of sludge, free from any matter capable of floating, at places not less than 10 miles from any shore, is not a violation of the decree, or (2) in the alternative, why this Court should not modify the decree so as to permit defendant to dump non-floating sewage sludge as aforesaid.
The Court ordered that a rule issue requiring plaintiff to show cause why leave to file the petition should not be granted. November 15, 1935, plaintiff by its return consented to the filing of defendant’s petition. And at the same time plaintiff filed its motion for the appointment of a special master with power to summon witnesses, to take testimony, “to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, respecting the allegations of the petition, and to submit the same to the Court with his recommendations, in respect to defendant’s prayer therein.”
Upon consideration of the premises, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed:
Defendant’s motion for leave to file its petition is granted. The facts alleged therein do not constitute a violation of the decree of December 4, 1933. Plaintiff’s return and motion are not sufficient to put in issue the allegations of defendant’s petition or to show that defendant has failed to comply with the decree. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of a special master is denied. This decree is without prejudice to any application that plaintiff may make under, in accordance with, or for the enforcement of, the decree of December 4, 1933.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Regal Knitwear Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 324 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1945)…tion of terms of the order. If defendants enter upon transactions which raise doubts as to the applicability of the injunction, they may petition the court granting it for a modification or construction of the order. Cf. New Jersey v. New York City, 296 U. S. 259. While such relief would be in the sound discretion of the court, we think courts would not be apt to withhold a clarification in the light of a concrete situation that left parties or “successors and assigns” in the dark as to their duty toward the…
-
United States v. Partin, 524 F.2d 992 (5th Cir. 1975)…ral courts have construed § 3692 very narrowly. See cases cited 422 U.S. at 474-75, 95 S.Ct. at 2159, 45 L.Ed.2d at 334 n. 12. . See Regal Knitwear Co. v. NLRB, 1945, 324 U.S. 9, 15, 65 S.Ct. 478, 89 L.Ed. 661; New Jersey v. City of New York, 1935, 296 U.S. 259, 56 S.Ct. 188, 80 L.Ed. 214; Wirtz v. Ocala Gas Co., 5 Cir. 1964, 336 F. 2d 236, 240; Flavor Corp. of Amer. v. Kemin Indus. Inc., 8 Cir. 1974, 503 F. 2d 729, 732; Developments in the Law — Injunctions, 78 Harv.L.Rev. 994, 1084 (1965). . We do not d…
-
Sydney N. Floersheim v. Engman, 494 F.2d 949 (D.C. Cir. 1973)…401 (1950). We do not think that Congress intended to deny the right generally available to those subject to court order to petition the court for clarification of a genuinely ambiguous decree, under the procedure invoked in New York v. New Jersey, 296 U.S. 259, 56 S.Ct. 188, 80 L.Ed. 214 (1935).3 A court’s inherent authority to construe its mandate applies to the judgment of a Federal court of appeals entered upon review of the order of a Federal administrative agency. This was established in Regal Knitw…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- New Jersey v. N.Y. City, 290 U.S. 237 (U.S. 1933)