U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1980

Port of Jacksonville Maritime Ad Hoc Committee, Inc. v. Admiral J. B. Hayes, Commandant, United States Coast Guard

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided August 19, 1980 · Godbold, Tjoflat, Johnson

620 F.2d 567 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mahoney, Hadlow & Adams, Guy 0. Farmer, II, Thomas M. Baumer, Michael B. Wedner, Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant., Mathews, Osborne, Ehrlick, McNatt, Go-belman & Cobb, John E. Mathews, Jr., James E. Cobb, Julie H. Kuntz, Jacksonville, Fla., for Jacksonville Transportation Authority., Robert S. Yerkes, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., for Hayes.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Commonwealth v. Simmons (Pa. 1989)
Port of Jacksonville Maritime Ad Hoc Committee, Inc. v. United States Coast Guard (11th Cir. 1986)
Missouri National Education Ass'n v. Missouri State Board of Mediation (Mo. 1985)
Gerosa Inc. v. Dole (District Court, S.D. New York 1983)
United States v. McDonald Chevrolet & Oldsmobile, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1981)
Port of Jacksonville Maritime Ad Hoc Committee, Inc. v. Hayes (5th Cir. 1980)

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 Ad Hoc Committee sought judicial review in the district court 1 of a decision by the Coast Guard to grant a permit for the construction of a fixed highway bridge across the St. Johns River and Mill Cove, near Jacksonville, Florida. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants.

The decision of the Coast Guard is affirmed on the basis of the district court opinion, 485 F.Supp. 741 (M.D.Fla. 1980). 2

AFFIRMED.

. Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706.

. Appellant contends that the Commandant did not properly delegate his authority to issue the bridge permit to his Chief Bridge Officer, and thus that the permit is invalid. Appellant further contends that the district court did not, and could not on the record before it, resolve this question. We do not decide this issue, as appellant did not raise it below and thus is precluded from raising it before this court. See Higginbotham v. Ford Motor Co., 540 F.2d 762, 768 n.10 (5th Cir, 1976); Excavators and Erectors, Inc. v. Bullard Engineers, Inc., 489 F.2d 318, 320 (5th Cir. 1973); Evans v. Triple R Welding & Oil Field Maintenance Corp,, 472 F.2d 713, 716 (5th Cir. 1973).

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