Date: May 2013

"Navigable Waters" Are Those Capable of Being Used In Commerce

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals [Alabama, Florida, Georgia] recently decided the case of Aqua Log, Inc. v. Lost and Abandoned Pre-Cut Logs and Rafts of Logs which clarifies the test used in the Eleventh Circuit to determine whether a waterway is navigable for admiralty-jurisdiction purposes.

A. Background

In the late nineteenth century, loggers transported their commercially harvested logs by floating them down rivers. In the process some logs sank to the bottom. Today, these submerged logs are in high demand.

Aqua Log, a company that locates, removes, and sells submerged logs, found and removed a number of logs which had been abandoned by their original owners at the bottom of the Flint River and Spring Creek in the State of Georgia. To secure title to the logs and/or recover a salvage award, Aqua Log filed suit in federal court invoking the court's admiralty jurisdiction. The state of Georgia intervened claiming ownership of the logs.

Georgia sought to have Aqua Log's suit dismissed because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction since the waterways where the logs were located (segments of the Flint River and Spring Creek) do not currently support commercial activity and no such activity is planned. The district court agreed and dismissed Aqua Log's suit. Aqua Log appealed.

Aqua Log maintained that the district court applied the wrong test and asked the Court of Appeal to adopt a test that defines navigable waters as those waters that are merely capable of being used for commercial purposes. Georgia urged the Eleventh Circuit to adopt the district court's test for navigability - that a waterway is navigable only if it currently supports commercial activity or if there is evidence of planned commercial activity on that waterway.

B. Discussion

The Constitution delegates jurisdiction over admiralty matters to the federal courts. This power is codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1), which gives Article III courts "original jurisdiction... of... [a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction. Federal admiralty jurisdiction extends to all navigable waters. Thus, for a court to have admiralty jurisdiction, the body of water in question must be navigable.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected the district court's reasoning and determined that it was bound by the Fifth Circuit's decision in Richardson v. Foremost Ins. Co. In the Richardson case, the Fifth Circuit instructed, "If the waterway is capable of being used in commerce, that is a sufficient threshold to invoke admiralty jurisdiction." Finding admiralty jurisdiction when a waterway is capable of supporting commercial activity creates a climate conducive to maritime activity and uniformity. Moreover, a test for navigability that requires actual commercial activity is unpredictable and not conducive to maritime commerce.

The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in concluding that the waterways are not navigable and in dismissing the case.

C. Why is this important?

Whether a body of water is navigable can impact which court a suit can be filed in and how it is likely to be resolved. With admiralty jurisdiction comes the application of substantive maritime law and admiralty procedures, including in rem and quasi-in-rem actions providing security for claims, which can be critical to the outcome of a case.

Article written by W. Brett Mason and Saul R. Newsome.

Date: May 2013

"Navigable Waters" Are Those Capable of Being Used In Commerce

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals [Alabama, Florida, Georgia] recently decided the case of Aqua Log, Inc. v. Lost and Abandoned Pre-Cut Logs and Rafts of Logs which clarifies the test used in the Eleventh Circuit to determine whether a waterway is navigable for admiralty-jurisdiction purposes.

A. Background

In the late nineteenth century, loggers transported their commercially harvested logs by floating them down rivers. In the process some logs sank to the bottom. Today, these submerged logs are in high demand.

Aqua Log, a company that locates, removes, and sells submerged logs, found and removed a number of logs which had been abandoned by their original owners at the bottom of the Flint River and Spring Creek in the State of Georgia. To secure title to the logs and/or recover a salvage award, Aqua Log filed suit in federal court invoking the court's admiralty jurisdiction. The state of Georgia intervened claiming ownership of the logs.

Georgia sought to have Aqua Log's suit dismissed because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction since the waterways where the logs were located (segments of the Flint River and Spring Creek) do not currently support commercial activity and no such activity is planned. The district court agreed and dismissed Aqua Log's suit. Aqua Log appealed.

Aqua Log maintained that the district court applied the wrong test and asked the Court of Appeal to adopt a test that defines navigable waters as those waters that are merely capable of being used for commercial purposes. Georgia urged the Eleventh Circuit to adopt the district court's test for navigability - that a waterway is navigable only if it currently supports commercial activity or if there is evidence of planned commercial activity on that waterway.

B. Discussion

The Constitution delegates jurisdiction over admiralty matters to the federal courts. This power is codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1), which gives Article III courts "original jurisdiction... of... [a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction. Federal admiralty jurisdiction extends to all navigable waters. Thus, for a court to have admiralty jurisdiction, the body of water in question must be navigable.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected the district court's reasoning and determined that it was bound by the Fifth Circuit's decision in Richardson v. Foremost Ins. Co. In the Richardson case, the Fifth Circuit instructed, "If the waterway is capable of being used in commerce, that is a sufficient threshold to invoke admiralty jurisdiction." Finding admiralty jurisdiction when a waterway is capable of supporting commercial activity creates a climate conducive to maritime activity and uniformity. Moreover, a test for navigability that requires actual commercial activity is unpredictable and not conducive to maritime commerce.

The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in concluding that the waterways are not navigable and in dismissing the case.

C. Why is this important?

Whether a body of water is navigable can impact which court a suit can be filed in and how it is likely to be resolved. With admiralty jurisdiction comes the application of substantive maritime law and admiralty procedures, including in rem and quasi-in-rem actions providing security for claims, which can be critical to the outcome of a case.

Article written by W. Brett Mason and Saul R. Newsome.

Date: May 2013

"Navigable Waters" Are Those Capable of Being Used In Commerce

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals [Alabama, Florida, Georgia] recently decided the case of Aqua Log, Inc. v. Lost and Abandoned Pre-Cut Logs and Rafts of Logs which clarifies the test used in the Eleventh Circuit to determine whether a waterway is navigable for admiralty-jurisdiction purposes.

A. Background

In the late nineteenth century, loggers transported their commercially harvested logs by floating them down rivers. In the process some logs sank to the bottom. Today, these submerged logs are in high demand.

Aqua Log, a company that locates, removes, and sells submerged logs, found and removed a number of logs which had been abandoned by their original owners at the bottom of the Flint River and Spring Creek in the State of Georgia. To secure title to the logs and/or recover a salvage award, Aqua Log filed suit in federal court invoking the court's admiralty jurisdiction. The state of Georgia intervened claiming ownership of the logs.

Georgia sought to have Aqua Log's suit dismissed because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction since the waterways where the logs were located (segments of the Flint River and Spring Creek) do not currently support commercial activity and no such activity is planned. The district court agreed and dismissed Aqua Log's suit. Aqua Log appealed.

Aqua Log maintained that the district court applied the wrong test and asked the Court of Appeal to adopt a test that defines navigable waters as those waters that are merely capable of being used for commercial purposes. Georgia urged the Eleventh Circuit to adopt the district court's test for navigability - that a waterway is navigable only if it currently supports commercial activity or if there is evidence of planned commercial activity on that waterway.

B. Discussion

The Constitution delegates jurisdiction over admiralty matters to the federal courts. This power is codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1), which gives Article III courts "original jurisdiction... of... [a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction. Federal admiralty jurisdiction extends to all navigable waters. Thus, for a court to have admiralty jurisdiction, the body of water in question must be navigable.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected the district court's reasoning and determined that it was bound by the Fifth Circuit's decision in Richardson v. Foremost Ins. Co. In the Richardson case, the Fifth Circuit instructed, "If the waterway is capable of being used in commerce, that is a sufficient threshold to invoke admiralty jurisdiction." Finding admiralty jurisdiction when a waterway is capable of supporting commercial activity creates a climate conducive to maritime activity and uniformity. Moreover, a test for navigability that requires actual commercial activity is unpredictable and not conducive to maritime commerce.

The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in concluding that the waterways are not navigable and in dismissing the case.

C. Why is this important?

Whether a body of water is navigable can impact which court a suit can be filed in and how it is likely to be resolved. With admiralty jurisdiction comes the application of substantive maritime law and admiralty procedures, including in rem and quasi-in-rem actions providing security for claims, which can be critical to the outcome of a case.

Article written by W. Brett Mason and Saul R. Newsome.

Date: May 2013

"Navigable Waters" Are Those Capable of Being Used In Commerce

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals [Alabama, Florida, Georgia] recently decided the case of Aqua Log, Inc. v. Lost and Abandoned Pre-Cut Logs and Rafts of Logs which clarifies the test used in the Eleventh Circuit to determine whether a waterway is navigable for admiralty-jurisdiction purposes.

A. Background

In the late nineteenth century, loggers transported their commercially harvested logs by floating them down rivers. In the process some logs sank to the bottom. Today, these submerged logs are in high demand.

Aqua Log, a company that locates, removes, and sells submerged logs, found and removed a number of logs which had been abandoned by their original owners at the bottom of the Flint River and Spring Creek in the State of Georgia. To secure title to the logs and/or recover a salvage award, Aqua Log filed suit in federal court invoking the court's admiralty jurisdiction. The state of Georgia intervened claiming ownership of the logs.

Georgia sought to have Aqua Log's suit dismissed because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction since the waterways where the logs were located (segments of the Flint River and Spring Creek) do not currently support commercial activity and no such activity is planned. The district court agreed and dismissed Aqua Log's suit. Aqua Log appealed.

Aqua Log maintained that the district court applied the wrong test and asked the Court of Appeal to adopt a test that defines navigable waters as those waters that are merely capable of being used for commercial purposes. Georgia urged the Eleventh Circuit to adopt the district court's test for navigability - that a waterway is navigable only if it currently supports commercial activity or if there is evidence of planned commercial activity on that waterway.

B. Discussion

The Constitution delegates jurisdiction over admiralty matters to the federal courts. This power is codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1), which gives Article III courts "original jurisdiction... of... [a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction. Federal admiralty jurisdiction extends to all navigable waters. Thus, for a court to have admiralty jurisdiction, the body of water in question must be navigable.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected the district court's reasoning and determined that it was bound by the Fifth Circuit's decision in Richardson v. Foremost Ins. Co. In the Richardson case, the Fifth Circuit instructed, "If the waterway is capable of being used in commerce, that is a sufficient threshold to invoke admiralty jurisdiction." Finding admiralty jurisdiction when a waterway is capable of supporting commercial activity creates a climate conducive to maritime activity and uniformity. Moreover, a test for navigability that requires actual commercial activity is unpredictable and not conducive to maritime commerce.

The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in concluding that the waterways are not navigable and in dismissing the case.

C. Why is this important?

Whether a body of water is navigable can impact which court a suit can be filed in and how it is likely to be resolved. With admiralty jurisdiction comes the application of substantive maritime law and admiralty procedures, including in rem and quasi-in-rem actions providing security for claims, which can be critical to the outcome of a case.

Article written by W. Brett Mason and Saul R. Newsome.

Date: May 2013

"Navigable Waters" Are Those Capable of Being Used In Commerce

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals [Alabama, Florida, Georgia] recently decided the case of Aqua Log, Inc. v. Lost and Abandoned Pre-Cut Logs and Rafts of Logs which clarifies the test used in the Eleventh Circuit to determine whether a waterway is navigable for admiralty-jurisdiction purposes.

A. Background

In the late nineteenth century, loggers transported their commercially harvested logs by floating them down rivers. In the process some logs sank to the bottom. Today, these submerged logs are in high demand.

Aqua Log, a company that locates, removes, and sells submerged logs, found and removed a number of logs which had been abandoned by their original owners at the bottom of the Flint River and Spring Creek in the State of Georgia. To secure title to the logs and/or recover a salvage award, Aqua Log filed suit in federal court invoking the court's admiralty jurisdiction. The state of Georgia intervened claiming ownership of the logs.

Georgia sought to have Aqua Log's suit dismissed because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction since the waterways where the logs were located (segments of the Flint River and Spring Creek) do not currently support commercial activity and no such activity is planned. The district court agreed and dismissed Aqua Log's suit. Aqua Log appealed.

Aqua Log maintained that the district court applied the wrong test and asked the Court of Appeal to adopt a test that defines navigable waters as those waters that are merely capable of being used for commercial purposes. Georgia urged the Eleventh Circuit to adopt the district court's test for navigability - that a waterway is navigable only if it currently supports commercial activity or if there is evidence of planned commercial activity on that waterway.

B. Discussion

The Constitution delegates jurisdiction over admiralty matters to the federal courts. This power is codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1), which gives Article III courts "original jurisdiction... of... [a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction. Federal admiralty jurisdiction extends to all navigable waters. Thus, for a court to have admiralty jurisdiction, the body of water in question must be navigable.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected the district court's reasoning and determined that it was bound by the Fifth Circuit's decision in Richardson v. Foremost Ins. Co. In the Richardson case, the Fifth Circuit instructed, "If the waterway is capable of being used in commerce, that is a sufficient threshold to invoke admiralty jurisdiction." Finding admiralty jurisdiction when a waterway is capable of supporting commercial activity creates a climate conducive to maritime activity and uniformity. Moreover, a test for navigability that requires actual commercial activity is unpredictable and not conducive to maritime commerce.

The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in concluding that the waterways are not navigable and in dismissing the case.

C. Why is this important?

Whether a body of water is navigable can impact which court a suit can be filed in and how it is likely to be resolved. With admiralty jurisdiction comes the application of substantive maritime law and admiralty procedures, including in rem and quasi-in-rem actions providing security for claims, which can be critical to the outcome of a case.

Article written by W. Brett Mason and Saul R. Newsome.