8 results for 'cat:"Water" AND cat:"Contract"'.
J. Dysart finds that the trial court properly denied a contractor's motion for post-judgment relief against the water board regarding the interruption in service for the contractor's failure to timely pay an invoice for water service after the contractor was awarded damages for breach of contract regarding the replacement of two sewerage pumping stations. In this case, the contractor cannot obtain payment of the judgment through compensation of water service. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Dysart, Filed On: April 25, 2024, Case #: 2023-CA-0787, Categories: water, contract
J. Bahr finds that the district court improperly dismissed a complaint after the district court granted summary judgment in favor of a plumbing company. An individual hired the plumbing company to perform a plumbing rough-in in a house built in the 1920s. The individual later discovered leaks and water damage. A genuine dispute of material fact exists as to the source and cause of the leak, therefore the district court erred in granting summary judgment. Reversed.
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court, Judge: Bahr , Filed On: April 4, 2024, Case #: 2024ND53, Categories: water, contract
J. King finds in partial favor of the county against the gas company's complaint that the county stopped accepting the plant condensate, a byproduct of its landfill gas conversion process, resulting in the closure of the gas company's landfill gas processing plant. The gas company argues that the plant condensate eventually makes its way to Puget Sound so the gas company's operations are subject to a Clean Water Act permit, but the plant condensate goes through a complicated process before reaching Puget Sound without traveling through a non-point source like the groundwater in the cited "County of Maui" to navigable waters.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: King, Filed On: February 9, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv542, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Environment, water, contract
J. Hardwick finds that the lower court properly denied the developer's petition for detachment from the county water district. The developer sought a lower tap fee for the delivery of water service to a new residential development, but it lacks standing to contest the contract between the district and the city. The developer has not shown the water district lacks the means to provide adequate water service or that its fees are out of the ordinary. Affirmed.
Court: Missouri Court Of Appeals, Judge: Hardwick, Filed On: November 14, 2023, Case #: WD85866, Categories: water, contract
J. Clarke finds in favor of the federal government for its claim that the county government office's 1943 contract and 1977 water permit do not allow it to make unauthorized water diversions from Klamath River, and that the water diversion limits the available habitat of the shortnose sucker and other local endangered species. Although the 1943 contract allows the county government office to take a maximum of 27,500 acre-feet of water per year under normal circumstances, there is a valid and legal exception during times of drought, such as what happened in 2022, meaning the county government office violated the terms of the contract.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: Clarke, Filed On: September 11, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv962, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Environment, water, contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. St. Eve finds that the lower court properly found for the defendant city in a dispute with a rural water association over another city's decision to buy water from defendant city rather than the association. The association does not have a legal right to provide water to the purchasing city because its facilities are not designed to produce sufficient water under Illinois law. Affirmed.
Court: 7th Circuit, Judge: St. Eve, Filed On: August 8, 2023, Case #: 22-2942, Categories: water, contract
J. Lambert finds for the property owner in his wide-ranging lawsuit involving property boundaries and historic ownership dating back to the 19th century against the city, his neighbors, nearby landowners and others, which stems from a dispute starting in 2005 over docks on his and his neighbors' waterfront properties and their respective riparian rights. In part because the trial court incorrectly determined it was undisputed that a portion of the easternmost part of the owner's property and adjacent unplatted land was owned by the city as sovereign, the trial court's summary judgment order in favor of the city and the neighbors is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. The trial court's denial of the property owner's motion for attorney fees is upheld without discussion. Reversed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Lambert, Filed On: July 14, 2023, Case #: 21-2407, Categories: Property, water, contract