United States v. Agosto-Vega
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
617 F.3d 541 (2010)

- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
Facts
Braulio Agosto-Vega (defendant) owned Braulio Agosto Motors, Inc. (Agosto Motors) (defendant) and Mansiones de Hacienda Jiménez, Inc. (Mansiones). Agosto Motors, a car dealership, and Mansiones, a real estate-development company, were located in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Both were family corporations that operated out of the Agosto Motors dealership and had overlapping employees and officers. Agosto-Vega was the principal officer of each corporation. One of Mansiones’ developments was a housing project in Río Grande. The project’s septic tanks began overflowing into front yards, sidewalks, and streets. Agosto-Vega had Mansiones employees collect the raw sewage and dispose of it into the nearby Jiménez Creek. The creek, which was used for fresh water and recreation, flowed into the Espíritu Santo River, which in turn emptied into the Atlantic Ocean. In discharging the raw sewage, the Mansiones employees used either an underground pipe or a large truck registered to Agosto Motors. Agosto-Vega was charged with conspiracy to discharge the raw sewage into waters of the United States in violation of the Clean Water Act, and both Agosto-Vega and Agosto Motors were charged with aiding and abetting the discharges. Agosto-Vega and Agosto Motors were convicted on each count and subsequently appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Torruella, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.