United States v. Rueth Development Co. And Harold G. Rueth

How courts have described this case

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

• observing “it is clear that SWANCC did not affect the law regarding... adjacency” in upholding the Corps’ jurisdiction over a wetland without finding that this wetland had a continuous surface connection to its adjacent tributary
• observing \it is clear that SWANCC did not affect the law regarding . . . adjacency\ in upholding the Corps' jurisdiction over a wetland without finding that this wetland had a continuous surface connection to its adjacent tributary
• refusing to modify or vacate consent decree where Supreme Court decision “did not expressly make [the relevant regulation] illegal” even though that “reading might be the only logical extension of the case”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).