Durkin v. Ward

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that ER 1130-2-341 was “not a substantive agency regulation” but part of the Corps’ “internal 122 operating manual” and therefore created no enforceable duties
• concluding that regulation 207.300(s) “creates a duty for boaters, not for the Corps”
• noting that general admiralty law, not state law, governs tort claims arising from injuries in territorial waters.
• holding that “[t]he decedents’ reckless behavior, not any action or inaction by the Corps, was the proximate cause of their deaths,” and affirming the district court’s holding that the sole cause of the decedents’ accident was their failure to use reasonable care for their own safety
• noting but declining to consider district court's alternative conclusion that Tennessee's recreational use statute applied to shield government from claim of negligent operation of a dam
• noting but declining to consider district court’s alternative conclusion that Tennessee's recreational use statute applied to shield government from claim of negligent operation of a dam

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).