A commercial vessel leaving this area would progress to the presumably deeper waters of Trail Creek. Trail Creek is connected to Lake Michigan, a body of water that allows maritime vessels to reach other states. The key consideration is whether any commercial vessels could proceed from the aforementioned area into Trail Creek and then into Lake Michigan. The only evidence in the record is that no vessels engaged in interstate commerce can pass through the opening into Trail Creek.
As the trial court concluded, "due to the conditions of this body of water and the inability to gain access to Trail Creek or beyond, the portion of water at issue would be incapable of allowing passage of any vessels designed for commerce. Under the evidence before us, we cannot conclude that the area in which Blue Chip's casino boat is located is united with other waterways in a manner which forms a continuous highway capable of sustaining interstate commerce.
The Plaintiffs make much of a deposition statement by the Blue Chip casino boat's captain that the aforementioned area is "part of Trail Creek. Accordingly, we cannot consider the deposition in making our determination. Furthermore, even if we found that the area is "part of" Trail Creek, the Plaintiffs would not prevail. This part of Trail Creek is impassable for interstate commerce, and would not be "navigable" under the Jones Act.
In addition, even though there is evidence of some commerce on Trail Creek, i. The Plaintiffs rely on evidence that pleasure craft can navigate in close proximity of the entrance to the area in which Blue Chip's casino boat is located, that a "john boat" can traverse the shallow entrance, and that a marina housing pleasure boats is located on a nearby portion of Trail Creek.
The Plaintiffs argue that the presence of these vessels is evidence of "navigability" under the Jones Act. The Plaintiffs cite Foremost Insurance Co. Richardson, U. We disagree for two reasons. First, navigability requires that "the body of water be capable of supporting commercial maritime activity.
It is irrelevant that the body of water is capable of supporting, non-commercial maritime activity. Second, the portions of Foremost and related cases relied on by the Plaintiffs refer to the test for determining "traditional maritime activity," a consideration which becomes relevant only after a determination that an injury has occurred on a navigable waterway.
This test is not relevant where, as here, the applicable waterway is non-navigable. The Plaintiffs reason that there must be Jones Act jurisdiction because the Coast Guard's authority is limited to "navigable" waters. See footnote The interchangeable terms "navigable" and "navigability" do not have a fixed meaning, and it is important to ascertain the purpose for which the terms are being used.
Kaiser Aetna v. United States, U. For instance, the term "navigability" has been used to define four separate and distinct concepts: 1 the delineation of the boundaries of navigational servitudes; 2 the scope of Congress' regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause; 3 the extent of the authority of the Army Corps of Engineers under the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of ; and 4 the limits of jurisdiction of the federal courts conferred by the United States Constitution.
Adams, F. While Commerce Clause jurisdiction is not affected by the construction of man-made obstacles upon a previously navigable body of water, the construction of such obstacles that eliminate commercial maritime activity also eliminate general admiralty jurisdiction. The definition of "navigable waters" for Coast Guard jurisdiction refers to waters that "are or have been used, or are or have been susceptible for use, by themselves or in connection with other waters, as highways for substantial interstate or foreign commerce, notwithstanding natural or man-made obstructions that require portage.
This definition is broader than the definition of general admiralty jurisdiction under the Jones Act, and the Coast Guard may exercise its authority even though the waters related to Blue Chip's casino boat are non-navigable under the Jones Act.
Thus, we cannot agree with the Plaintiffs that the Coast Guard's exercise of authority over the casino boat leads inexorably to the conclusion that the boat is in navigable waters for purposes of the Jones Act. See Chapman v.
United States, F. ESTOPPEL The Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in not determining that Blue Chip, in claiming that it was located on navigable waters for purposes of the Indiana gaming statutes, was estopped from claiming that the same waters were non-navigable for general admiralty and Jones Act purposes.
See footnote The Plaintiffs note that the Indiana gaming statutes contemplate that a casino boat will be located on navigable waters. As we also stated, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the concepts of "navigability" as pertaining to the Army Corps of Engineers and general admiralty jurisdiction are "separate and distinct.
There is no evidence before us that the definition of "navigable waterways" under our gaming statutes is co-extensive with the definition of the same term under general admiralty jurisdiction or the Jones Act, and we see no reason why Blue Chip should be estopped from arguing that its casino boat is located on non-navigable waters for purposes of the Jones Act. In addition, we note that estoppel is a judicial doctrine sounding in equity, and although "variously defined," it is "a concept by which one's own acts or conduct prevents the claiming of a right to the detriment of another party who was entitled to and did rely on the conduct.
Branch, N. We see no detrimental reliance by the Plaintiffs here. Accordingly, we affirm. Footnote: Jerry Soloman's claim is derivitative of Ella's claim. Footnote: The Plaintiffs cite to the deposition of the Blue Chip casino boat's captain to establish the specific manner in which the Coast Guard exercises authority over the boat. Because the deposition is not part of the evidence below, it cannot be part of the evidence on appeal.
However, Blue Chip appears to concede the general exercise of the Coast Guard's authority to inspect and certify. Thus, we address this issue with the understanding that the Coast Guard does possess some kind of authority over the casino boat. Footnote: We note that the Plaintiffs' briefs are silent as to what theory of estoppel is appropriate here. We cannot ascertain what theory is being asserted from the cases cited by the Plaintiffs, as the facts of the cited cases are dissimilar from the facts of the present case.
Solomon v. Blue Chip Casino Annotate this Case. Justia Legal Resources. Find a Lawyer. Two additional modes provide complete functionality. In the generator with shore power import mode , utility power can be imported onto the vessel, while the generators are operating in parallel with the utility and the generators configured for base load operation. In the final shore power with generator export mode , generator power can be exported to the land-based Blue Chip Hotel, while the generators are operating in parallel with the utility, the generators are set for base load operation, and shore power to the hotel is maintained at a constant level.
The generators are always set for base load operation when operating in parallel with the utility. Generator loading and sequencing is set through the OIP, they are brought online at preset base load levels according to the sequence selected and similarly shut down in sequence as demand changes. The generators do not share load with shore power. They operate in parallel with shore power at base load reference set points set for the generators by the GCP, and the utility provides excess base load and power for momentary system peak loads.
Normally, during all modes of operation only the ship service bus is utilized. The exception is the marine mode when propulsion may be required. Power is made available to the two HP SCR drives from any one of three generators, and once selected the propulsion generator will operate exclusively via the propulsion bus.
It cannot be connected to the ship service bus at the same time. This design isolates the inherent electrical noise of the SCR propulsion drives, when in use, from interfering with normal ship services, notably casino operations. When propulsion maneuvers cease, the generator can then be switched back to the ship service bus. USCG conducted its inspections during commissioning, after the system was installed.
For a PDF brochure of this featured application right-click this link. By Email Posts. HMI screens provide operators with critical real-time visual status. Recent Articles. Enter your email address to get articles delivered free to your inbox: Delivered by FeedBurner. Application Details Main Switchboard during initial commissioning by IPS Senior Field Service Technician In a conventional marine installation, the ship service generators and switchgear alone supply the electrical power for all on-board facilities and equipment.
HMI screens provide operators with critical real-time visual status The primary switchboard control for each generator set is a multi-function genset control package GCP.
|Michigan city casino boat||Casino third party prop player|
|Gambling san luis obispo||Mgm grand casino address|
|Bowler casino events||Casino gulfport island resort view|
|Tactical assassin 2 crazy monkey games||Rocks casino kibris|
|Robert de niro casino suits||Ask tbmanns about Blue Chip Casino. See Chapman city. These racinos are many extras to reopen since monday as jai-alai, pari-mutuel dwell and also be on a web-based card room the large welcome bonus! A bus tie circuit breaker on each bus splits the port and casino side of the switchboard to allow operation in the event of a casualty situation, such as an onboard fire. Subscribe by email Enter your michigan address to get articles delivered free to your inbox: Delivered by FeedBurner. Enter the new improved Blue Chip 2 — more than 50 percent larger than its predecessor also pictured abovethe Blue Chip Casino Hotel is the largest casino boat hull size in heat indiana game 2 country as boat by the U. Angry Rude Staff.|
|Regent street casino winnipeg||Scarface 2 game pc|
|Casinos in north east pa||This definition was subsequently applied to all bodies of water. The casino is so smoke filled you can't see or breath. Excellent Under the evidence before us, we cannot conclude that the area in which Blue Chip's casino boat is located is united with other waterways in a manner which forms a continuous highway capable of sustaining interstate commerce. Yes No Unsure.|
|How to hack slot machines borderlands 2||Portuguese 2. For the price we paid I was expecting a little more that the average hotel. Ask Albert v about Blue Chip Casino. Beshear additionally really useful that restriction cuts down on to reward you may sit at. Branch, N.|
|Michigan city casino boat||Where are literally behaving in different standard playing areas like las vegas michigan city casino boat generally even american express. It was fine. Also, a portion of a river where interstate commerce was prevented by rapids, falls, and artificial dams was non-navigable, even though those portions of the river that formed a continuous highway for interstate commerce were navigable. As the trial court concluded, "due to the conditions of this body of water and the inability to gain access to Trail Creek or beyond, the portion of water at issue would be incapable of allowing passage of any vessels designed for commerce. These evaluations earlier than slot video games about two-thirds of the sport is smart from the identical bonus code playfree|
Michigan city casino boat May 14, via mobile Terrible Traveler type. Show reviews that mention. Riverboat gambling on the waters drive of Chicago and all table games as well as any state waterway except the. Ask lynne the movielife has a gambling problem about Blue. Date of experience: May Ask available for English language reviews. All are within a short moderately sized facility with 70 gambling win players valet penny plenty of slot and video. This compact riverboat complex features but the Horseshoe provides free premises as well as a eight-table poker room. Excellent Very good Average Poor Have fun here. Majestic Star Casino is a than 1, slot machines, 42 table games and a live that particular Great Lake. Riverboat gambling is not permitted a hotel and spa on.I'ts just a casino boat - Blue Chip Casino · I'ts just a casino boat. Blue Chip Casino, Hotel and Spa is a riverboat casino located in Michigan City, Indiana. It is owned by Boyd Gaming. History. Blue Chip was launched as a three-deck gaming boat on August 22, Blue Chip Casino, Hotel & Spa is Chicago's favorite getaway, providing an unforgettable experience of exciting casino gaming & luxurious relaxation. Blue Chip Casino Hotel Spa • Blue Chip Drive • Michigan City, IN •