United States v. Pozsgai
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
999 F.2d 719 (1993)
- Written by Oni Harton, JD
Facts
During an investigation, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) discovered that concrete, dirt, rubble, and building scraps had been dumped into a Pennsylvania wetlands property. Pozsgai (defendant) was considering purchasing the property during the Corps investigation. Pozsgai hired an engineering firm to examine the property’s suitability for building as a part of the purchase process. The engineering firm advised that the entire site met the criteria set by the Corps as wetlands and that the Corps was not inclined to issue building permits for such sites. Pozsgai received the same expert opinion from other engineering firms but eventually purchased the property anyway. Following the purchase, the Corps discovered that Pozsgai was placing fill in the property without a permit. The dumping and filling continued for more than a year. Due to the continued filling, the Corps issued cease-and-desist letters requesting the filling to stop, but it did not. The United States (plaintiff) filed a civil action against Pozsgai, alleging that Pozsgai violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) by filling the wetlands without a permit. The United States sought to restore the property to its original state, civil penalties, a temporary restraining order, and a preliminary injunction to stop further discharge.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Scirica, 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. 46,500 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.