Miami-Dade County v. United States

345 F. Supp. 2d 1319 | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2004

enforcedCited 13 timesSTANDARDTexas
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

The court found the United States liable as a former owner/operator of Miami International Airport from 1942-1948 and as a lessee from 1948-1966, and ordered equitable allocation of environmental cleanup costs under CERCLA.

The United States was a former owner for CERCLA purposes with respect to portions of MIA.

District Court, S.D. Florida, 2004

Related Cases

General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.

2001voided

The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.

PYCA Industries, Inc. v. Harrison County Waste Water Management District

1996modified

A wastewater district is a citizen for diversity jurisdiction purposes and a political subdivision entitled to sovereign immunity from tort claims under pre-Pruett Mississippi law.

MCI CONSTRUCTORS, LLC v. City of Greensboro

2010enforced

District court properly confirmed arbitration award finding City entitled to $14.9 million damages; arbitration panel did not exceed its powers and award was not procured by undue means.

Linan-Faye Construction Co., Inc. v. Housing Authority of the City of Camden

1995remanded

District court erred in applying federal common law instead of New Jersey law to interpret the termination for convenience clause, but New Jersey courts would look to federal common law for guidance on this issue.

Blackstone Medical, Inc. D/B/A Orthofix Spinal Implants v. Phoenix Surgicals, LLC

2015enforced

Trial court properly denied motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict on breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims where evidence supported jury findings of wrongful termination and waiver of exclusivity provision.

Textron Defense Systems v. Sheila E. Widnall, Secretary of the Air Force

1998enforced

A contractor under a cost-plus-award-fee contract is not entitled to a pro-rata share of unearned award fees upon termination for convenience, as the award fee clause was expressly exempted from the termination clause and the contractor had no reasonable expectation of receiving fees for unperformed work.