U.S. v. Pennsylvania Industrial Chemical Corporation
United States Supreme Court
411 U.S. 655 (1973)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Pennsylvania Industrial Chemical Corporation (PICCO) (defendant) was prosecuted for violating waterway-pollution provisions of Section 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. § 407. In addition to raising other issues regarding the applicability of the statute, PICCO claimed that it had been affirmatively misled by the regulations promulgated by the responsible administrative agency to believe that its conduct was not criminal. The district court rejected this argument, and PICCO was convicted. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s holding that Section 13 did apply to PICCO’s conduct but reversed the conviction on multiple grounds, including that the responsible administrative agency had failed to set up a permit program for this type of conduct and also that the district court had erred in rejecting PICCO’s claim that it had been affirmatively misled by the regulations. The court of appeals therefore reversed PICCO’s conviction and remanded the case so that PICCO’s claim regarding its reliance on the misleading regulations could be presented. The prosecution (plaintiff) petitioned for certiorari, and the United States Supreme Court granted the request.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brennan, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Blackmun, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Burger, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.