Committee to Save Cleveland’s Huletts v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
163 F. Supp. 2d 776 (2001)
- Written by Jody Stuart, JD
Facts
Four decommissioned Hulett iron-ore unloading machines were located on the Cleveland waterfront and listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1997. In March 1999, the Cleveland-Cuyahoga Port Authority (port authority) sought a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (corps) (defendant) to conduct dredging along the waterfront. The corps submitted the permit request to various agencies for review. The Ohio State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Committee to Save Cleveland’s Huletts (Save) (plaintiff) had substantial contact with the corps in March, April, and May, expressing concern over the potential effect of dredging on the Hulett machines. The corps also received and responded to public input from others regarding the impact of the permit. In mid-May, the corps issued a dredging permit to the port authority that would expire in 2004. Before issuing the permit, the corps had not properly documented its finding that the dredging would have no effect on the machines, had not notified the SHPO in writing of its finding, and did not wait 15 days for a response from the SHPO. Subsequently, Save brought an action against the corps seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting that the dredging permit was issued in violation of the National Historic Preservation Act (act).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Malley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.