U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1958

Guerrero-Zapata Bridge Company v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided February 11, 1958 · Rives, Brown, Wisdom

252 F.2d 116; 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3662 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Robert Lee Bobbitt, Jr., San Antonio, Tex., Bobbitt, Brite & Bobbitt, San Antonio, Tex., of counsel, for appellant., Perry W. Morton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Roger P. Marquis, Elizabeth Dudley, Washington, D. C., Attys., Dept, of Justice, Malcolm R. Wilkey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Bank One Texas, National Ass'n v. United States (5th Cir. 1998)
Bank One Texas v. United States (5th Cir. 1998)
Allan C. Miller and Betty G. Miller v. United States (6th Cir. 1978)
United States v. 8,968.06 Acres of Land (District Court, S.D. Texas 1971)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The question is whether for the taking of its bridge over the Rio Grande River, a toll bridge company is entitled to compensation on the basis of the land and improvements only or to the value of its franchise also. The Act of Congress authorizing the construction and operation of the bridge, approved March 29, 1928, 45 Stat. 387, expressly reserved “the right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act.” The Bridge was inundated as the result of construction of a dam pursuant to a treaty of February 3, 1944 between the United States and Mexico, 59 Stat. 1219. In a well reasoned opinion, District Judge Allred has expressed the view that there was an implied repeal of the Act granting the franchise as clear and effective as an express repeal would have been, and that the bridge company was not due compensation for the value of its franchise, United States v. 85,237 Acres of Land, More or Less, in Zapata County, Texas, D.C., 157 F.Supp. 150. After careful consideration, we agree with that opinion.

The judgment is therefore

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.