Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
 
Search 591,302 Cases and Articles on TJV!
 
Federal Case Categories







Union Pacific Railroad Company v Chicago Transit Authority

Case No. 09-2147 (C.A. 7, Jul. 25, 2011)

Union Pacific Railroad Company owns a 2.8-mile-long right-of-way that it has leased to the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) for almost 50 years. When it became too costly for the CTA to continue leasing the land, the CTA sought to condemn the land and obtain a perpetual easement over it. Union Pacific filed for injunctive relief in federal district court, arguing that the state condemnation was preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (“ICCTA” or “Act”), 49 U.S.C. § 10501(b). The district court agreed and granted the injunction. The CTA now appeals. Because we agree that the state condemnation is preempted by federal law, we affirm.

I.



Union Pacific operates railroad track throughout the United States and conducts a significant amount of freight shipping through Chicago. At the center of this litigation is a piece of railroad property owned by Union Pacific, which we refer to as the “Right of Way.” The Right of Way consists of an elevated structure on a man-made enbankment, running east to west for approximately 2.8 miles from Laramie Avenue in Chicago to Harlem Avenue in Oak Park, Illinois. This property is roughly 90 to 95 feet wide along most of its length. It covers an area greater than 32 acres (approximately 1,407,812 square feet), and includes 23 bridges over local streets. On the Right of Way, Union Pacific operates three railroad tracks.

Union Pacific also leases approximately 40% of the Right of Way (just under 13 acres) to the CTA, which is a municipal corporation providing mass transportation services for the city of Chicago. In the leased property, the CTA owns and operates two electric-powered local rapid transit tracks that run parallel to Union Pacific’s three tracks. This arrangement between the CTA and Union Pacific has continued without interruption since 1962 and is governed by a written lease agreement.

Under the terms of the lease, the CTA must use the Right of Way only for passenger transportation, it must maintain its tracks in good condition, and it must get Union Pacific’s approval before constructing new CTA facilities such as tracks, platforms, stations, and stairways. Union Pacific, however, maintains the Right of the Way and the joint facilities shared with the CTA, such as retaining walls, drainage facilities, and bridges. The distance between the CTA’s and Union Pacific’s closest tracks is approximately five feet for the entire length of the Right of Way. Because of this close proximity, Union Pacific must modify its regular maintenance procedures and use non-standard inspection procedures when maintaining the Right of Way. The lease also requires the CTA to reimburse Union Pacific for 40% of the cost of maintaining the Right of Way and the joint facilities, including constructing new joint facilities. Finally, the lease terminates if the CTA stops passenger transportation—other than temporary shutdowns for maintenance and repair—or if the CTA fails to make rental payments or to fulfill any of the lease’s other conditions. As long as the CTA keeps its commitments, the lease does not expire but continues indefinitely.
 

 

Judge(s): Daniel Manion
Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Related Categories: Constitutional Law , Contracts , Property , Transportation
 
Circuit Court Judge(s)
Terence Evans
Joel Flaum
Daniel Manion

 
Trial Court Judge(s)
Robert Dow, Jr.

 
Amicus Lawyer(s) Amicus Law Firm(s)
Jane Notz United States Department of Justice

 
Appellant Lawyer(s) Appellant Law Firm(s)
Richard Friedman Neal & Leroy, LLC

 
Appellee Lawyer(s) Appellee Law Firm(s)
Thomas Andreoli Union Pacific Railroad Company

 

CUSTOM EMAIL ALERTS!

With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.

 



Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
prevents or unduly interferes with railroad opera- cally preempted and preempted "as applied." the cta court is affirmed.10 (internal quotation omitted). in determining preemp- "would prevent or unduly interfere" with railroad trans- united states court of appeals (in this case, by condemnation), then the possibility of before flaum, manion, and evans, circuit judges. already uses the right of way as a lessee and can contrary to the cta's claim, the easement is not coex- 6 no. 09-2147 the result of a lease. should the cta prevail, the use is roughly 90 to 95 feet wide along most of its length. that are less valuable for railroad transportation, or that trial, team, switching, or side tracks, or facilities, or unreasonably interfering with railroad transportation." "regulation." but as the district court noted, the dictionary ii. other agreement, there is no issue of federal preemp- no. 09-2147 15 union pacific has continued without interruption since but the cta's argument fails for a second reason rently, this presents no federal preemption issue tion" to include railroad property, facilities, and located, entirely in one state, regulation may be categorically preempted on its face, despite not knowing whether the cta will willingly or 1,407,812 square feet), and includes 23 bridges over local v. by unreasonably interfering with existing transportation id. at *3. in this case, the district court used the board's there were two manners in which state or local actions tional railroad lines if it was unoccupied. in norfolk, the but in fact, the condemnation does change the status quo june 8, 2009); dist. of columbia, 2005 wl 975745. argued january 21, 2011--decided july 25, 2011 condemnation. under its terms, the lease terminates if enforce the cta's compliance with its obligations. we no. 09-2147 19 tracks; and it affects union pacific's current railroad to obtain such an arrangement by regulation is pre- tion--which is normally a rule of general applicabil- union pacific, however, maintains the right of the way and the joint facilities shared with the cta, such as see, e.g., island park, llc v. csx transp., 559 f.3d 96, 104 (2d1 mobil corp., 537 f.3d 775, 786 (7th cir. 2008); franks inv. injunction in federal district court, arguing that the con- or local action is preempted on its face despite its con- law because it would have a significant impact on text or rationale. id at *2. if an action is not categorically3 of the right of way was both categorically preempted 2010). similar to the case before us, norfolk involved a which might be used in the future); city of lincoln, 414 f.3d impact on railroad transportation: it prevents union under the terms of the lease, the cta must use the from using the property for railroad transportation and non-exclusive easements across railroad property such as road context of railroad crossings--a type of taking--one a similar scenario. when it became too costly for the cta to continue we decline to do so in this case. even though there llc, 635 f.3d 938, 941 (7th cir. 2011). and we review on railroad transportation--this occurs when the facts taking of this property would still prevent union pacific length agreement between them, while after the con- distant from railroad operations to present no unreasonable freight shipping through chicago. at the center of this and granted summary judgment in union pacific's 861 (8th cir. 2005) ("courts have recognized that congress it covers an area greater than 32 acres (approximately a delaware corporation, a dispute between the parties over the appropriate appeals. because we agree that the state condemnation property would not change following the condemnation, demnation was preempted by the interstate commerce docket no. 34662, 2005 wl 1024490, at *2-3 (s.t.b. may 3, same both before and after the condemnation is only a is only a few feet beside union pacific's current rail- interference. see, e.g., bayou dechene reservoir comm'n v. cir. 2009) (describing jurisdiction as "broad"); franks inv. co. of the property. currently, the use of the property is we noted above that this case where a lessee seeks to the rent for the 2002-2012 lease period. they obtained board recognized value in railroad property that the on the right of way or the cta would condemn the disagree. the right to reclaim the property is valuable it upholds its obligations under the lease. this fact is heavy railroad traffic and covering an area just under future. the railroad corridor through chicago is valuable union pac. r.r. corp., no. 09-0429, 2009 wl 1604658 (w.d. la. rights under the easement shall run with the land and preemption intent, not a narrow one"). operations, including requiring union pacific to use non- crossings and utility easements. see, e.g., lincoln lumber union pacific railroad company, property subject to the condemnation. federal law because it is a regulation, and not a contract tion at issue is whether the proposed state condemna- because despite its claim to the contrary, the perpetual union pacific, which we refer to as the "right of way." no. 09-2147 5 2007 wl 2299735 (s.t.b. aug. 10, 2007) (sewer easement); (continued...) with the current terms of the lease, the proposed condem- agency of the state of illinois. in the proceedings, the ments, the lease does not expire but continues indefinitely. this case: here, the lessee seeks to condemn property norfolk s. ry. co.--petition for declaratory order, stb road tracks, a taking would unreasonably interfere with fact that union pacific would have available legal important--it is the foundation for the cta's entire thus, with the condemnation, union pacific loses certain make these remedies equivalent to those it has as a land- the right of way if the cta fails to meet its lease ob- 4 no. 09-2147 before us, an "as applied" analysis is more appropriate legal position. from this premise, the cta argues that but here we come to the crux of the matter: the cta we review de novo the district court's grant of sum- streets. on the right of way, union pacific operates to harlem avenue in oak park, illinois. this property but perhaps most instructive is a case called norfolk determination of "no unreasonable interference" has proximately 2.8 miles from laramie avenue in chicago denying the city's request to take railroad lines that the standard procedures to maintain the right of way. cur- railroad transportation by preventing union pacific change, and other operating rules), practices, value: union pacific's appraisal was $30.8 million, while no. 09-2147 13 there is no interference with railroad transportation maintaining the current rental arrangement. nothing not be subject to termination for any reason." cta, however, is asking us to expand the meaning of "no (d.d.c. apr. 21, 2005); maumee & w. r.r. corp.--petition for railroad purposes. norfolk s. ry. co., 2010 wl 691256, at by union pacific that union pacific could use for addi- city of auburn v. united states, 154 f.3d 1025, 1030 (9th cir. 1998) federal preemption may arise. away from the arrangement, the cta does not want to or unreasonably interferes with railroad transportation. stop using the right of way. instead, it wants to change lease, and (2) the right as a lessor to oust the cta from now appeals. condemn railroad property or facilities for another use that cedures and use non-standard inspection procedures 2005); see also new orleans & gulf coast ry. co. v. barrois, unreasonably interfering with railroad transportation. tion establishing a perpetual easement over the right demnation actions. a new lease arrangement for the right of way with fin- for the seventh circuit 2010) (determining iccta preemption). case before us, and we make no ruling on how other intended to give the board extensive authority in this area."); (1) transportation by rail carriers, and the reme- the cta's position is logically flawed. the fact that united states and conducts a significant amount of moreover, since the portion of the right of way at issue an insignificant impact on railroad transportation. the tracks is approximately five feet for the entire length period based on a formula specified in the lease and the of the right of way. because of this close proximity, would "not be subject to termination for any reason." to regulation of rail transportation are exclusive the chicago transit authority (cta) for almost 50 years. broad and sweeping.1 cited, any case law describing a similar situation. even lease: before the condemnation, the parties' relationship appraised fair market value of the right of way. for the according to a preexisting agreement with the lessor. 10101, 10102(1). in the act, congress expressly so, we believe case law is consistent with our holding. in pays monthly rent to union pacific. every ten years, the distance between the cta's and union pacific's closest see new orleans & gulf coast ry. co. v. barrois, 533 f.3d 321,4 691256, at *3 (s.t.b. feb. 26, 2010) (internal quotation omitted). see also city of s. bend v. surface transp. bd., 566 f.3d 1166,7 by the board." csx transp., inc., 2005 wl 1024490, at *2. and preempt the remedies provided under federal erty in exchange for a one-time payment and a lower nation would not change the status quo of activity on the the interstate commerce commission termination act other courts have likewise agreed. see wisconsin cent. ltd. v. coincidence due to the unique and peculiar scenario in relationship with union pacific and its use of the or other agreement, that has the effect of preventing and monthly rent at approximately $90,000. classifications, rules (including car service, inter- came of this discussion. then, in july 2006, the cta tion is a peculiar type of regulation, one specifically tion specified that "the cta's obligations, interests and 8 no. 09-2147 declaratory order, stb finance docket no. 35196, 2010 wl agreement concerning use." 49 u.s.c. 10102(9). con- the district court held that condemnation can be a form of2 are more distant from and less intrusive to active tions--which corresponds to the "as applied" analysis.5 we will use an "as applied" analysis.6 boomer v. at&t corp., 309 f.3d 404, 417 (7th cir. 2002) sented, and we are unaware of, any case law describing uses.") (internal quotation omitted). already using the right of way, there is no question union pacific must modify its regular maintenance pro- the cta ceases using the right of way for passenger by rule or restriction." black's law dictionary 1398 (9th ed. b. the supremacy clause of the united states constitu- maintain its tracks in good condition, and it must get mile right of way fall under the act. instead, the ques- as a preliminary matter, we note that this is effectively retaining walls, drainage facilities, and bridges. the right of way in any manner. and therefore, since its made union pacific an offer: union pacific had 14 days in using the right of way is the result of an arms- the basis that it violates the commerce clause of the united 2009). and that is what is occurring here--the cta wants to preempted by the act. therefore this condemnation defined in [49 u.s.c. ] 10102(9)." norfolk s. ry. co.--petition for three tracks. this arrangement between the cta and in the right of way only for passenger transportation, it must be used whenever it became available. in addition, the all the cases where courts have found that a condemna- or state law. subject to termination--a manner of control that the under the terms of the lease, this case would be straight- of way is a regulation of railroad transportation pre- is unique. we are not aware of, and neither party has no. 09-2147 9 union pacific also leases approximately 40% of the 1169-71 (d.c. cir. 2009) (affirming the board's decision no. 09-2147 3 also suggests using an "as applied" analysis. in the regulation, and we agree. the act does not define the term requires the cta to reimburse union pacific for 40% of 14 no. 09-2147 statute at issue. english v. gen. elec. co., 496 u.s. 72, 78-79 extreme type of control--over rail transportation as it is since the perpetual easement it seeks is "coextensive" we note that this reasoning applies even if the the remaining cases are instances of land takings sufficiently this dispute began when the parties were calculating railroad lines). part of a right of way may become necessary for railroad a lessee is bringing condemnation proceedings against three railroad tracks. abandonment, or discontinuance of spur, indus- the illinois commerce commission, an administrative ("the language of the iccta's preemption provision, as well as use of the right of way is speculative and because union pacific also challenges the state condemnation on10 united states are "the supreme law of the land . . . any use was sufficiently insignificant that it did not unrea- and obtain a perpetual easement over it. union pacific road the ability to conduct some part of its operations or tion, we look to congress's intent in enacting the federal but have framed the issue by asking whether the action portation."); city of lincoln v. surface transp. bd., 414 f.3d 858, (1990). union pacific would still have other legal means to the remedies provided under this part with respect rangement that it agreed to when it first entered the property rights, namely, (1) the right to reclaim the prop- unreasonably interferes with railroad transportation is gain perpetual control of the property without it being commission termination act. the district court agreed gress to broadly preempt state law as it relates to rail trans- work or conducted a categorical preemption analysis, erty. the cta is dissatisfied with the monthly rent ar- property, or both, by rail, regardless of ownership or an 1962 and is governed by a written lease agreement. (continued...) 533 f.3d 321, 332 (5th cir. 2008) (describing the board's litigation is a piece of railroad property owned by tion on the right of way. the mere fact that the right and unreasonably interferes with railroad transporta- contrary notwithstanding." u.s. const. art. vi, cl. 2. thus, way that affects railroad transportation by contract or demnations have not acknowledged the board's frame- services for the city of chicago. in the leased property, when maintaining the right of way. the lease also during this time, the parties discussed the possibility was for a new use of railroad property and such new cording to a lease agreement. the parties have not pre- of general applicability because each instance neces- perpetual easement is entirely coextensive with the finance docket no. 35196, 2010 wl 691256 (s.t.b. feb. 26, is preempted by federal law, we affirm. leasing the land, the cta sought to condemn the land tion but is the same before and after a condemnation. condemn property that it already uses under a lease using an "as applied" analysis, the question then be- of negotiating a one-time payment in exchange for a that the condemnation would be preempted by federal a lease agreement is irrelevant; the act preempts state most cases where there was no unreasonable interference with9 in contrast, under the easement, the cta's rights appeal from the united states district court 10 no. 09-2147 portation. by contrast, a condemnation is not a rule the degree of interference that the particular action has filed for injunctive relief in federal district court, or regulations could be preempted: (1) categorical, or per se, preemption, and (2) "as applied" preemption. csx here, there is no dispute that union pacific and its 2.8- tions on the right of way or violates any term of the union pacific operates railroad track throughout the from using it for railroad transportation in the future. on the neighboring tracks. would conflict with the rail use is exercising control--the most (2) the construction, acquisition, operation, dies provided in this part with respect to rates, that have a significant impact on railroad transporta- raises the issue of preemption, even if the relationship the cta's use of the right of way has a significant analysis and an "as applied" analysis makes sense: the (...continued)9 easement over union pacific's right of way prevents insignificant as it prevents union pacific from using the co. llc v. union pac. r.r. co., 593 f.3d 404, 407 (5th cir. transp., inc.--petition for declaratory order, stb finance relationship and property rights do change after the or local government secures the use of property in a finally, the lease terminates if the cta stops pas- is preempted. nificant. federal preemption does not apply to all situa- the right of way, the condemnation is preempted by plaintiff-appellee, pacific from using the property itself for additional 332-33 (5th cir. 2008). been limited to cases where a new use of property has stantial because the likelihood of union pacific regaining of land that would interfere with storage and loading); city of state condemnation of railroad property, but it was de- actions: (1) "any form of state or local permitting or pre- to halt the condemnation, union pacific sought an ancial terms more acceptable to the cta, but an attempt 18 no. 09-2147 apply in that context, and the "as applied" analy- unreasonable interference" to a case where the use of maumee & w. r.r. corp., 2004 wl 395835 (road crossing). of a 2.8-mile-long strip of land only five feet adjacent to than an analysis for categorical preemption. a condemna- to proceed with activities that the board has authorized" and to uphold its lease obligations is in a stronger position it violates any of the agreements specified in the lease. our decision to use the "as applied" analysis is limited to the6 and preempted "as applied." union pacific urges us to that of the cta was $11.3 million. so, as provided by railroad transportation are instances of non-conflicting and from the fact that union pacific currently must use non- no. 09-2147 7 owns a 2.8-mile-long right-of-way that it has leased to rapid transit tracks that run parallel to union pacific's no. 09-2147 the board described two types of categorically preempted3 union pacific's existing railroad traffic--this is evident to those situations where a regulation prevents or unrea- 12 no. 09-2147 in exchange for the use of the right of way, the cta laws that interfere with, or are contrary to, federal law." the lease, the parties arranged for a neutral appraiser cta currently does not enjoy. a man-made enbankment, running east to west for ap- the fact-specific nature of the condemnation before us, downs for maintenance and repair--or if the cta fails agrees with this understanding: "condemnation can be a limited in scope to the ownership or use of one particular and, hence, no federal preemption. comes whether the state condemnation for a perpetual show that the action "would have the effect of preventing different approaches in case law and suggested that 2540695, at *4 (d. minn. june 17, 2010). plans to use, but which might be needed later for suggested; instead, it conducted an "as applied" analysis, no. 09-2147 17 for railroad transportation, and although union pacific property rights in the condemnation, and the cta would our review of case law analyzing condemnations eral preemption issue is dispositive. approximately $25,000. never be stated with certainty at what time any particular (noting that case law finds "a broad reading of congress' v. union pac. r.r. co., 534 f.3d 443, 449 (5th cir. 2008) union pacific's approval before constructing new cta preempted, it may be preempted "as applied" based on see island park, llc, 559 f.3d at 104-06; city of lincoln, 414 f.3d5 be applicable in other regulation cases, including other con- defendant-appellant. or based on the specific facts of the case it may be pre- the lessor for property that the lessee already uses ac- "coextensive" with the lease. notably, the cta's peti- erty if the cta ceases passenger transportation opera- land itself for new railroad tracks and it significantly iii. facilities such as tracks, platforms, stations, and stairways. railroad operations on the right of way would be the the cta's operations, there is little doubt that it would no. 07 cv 229--robert m. dow, jr., judge. adopt the same approach. word, the cta began condemnation proceedings with board in norfolk did not apply a categorical analysis, ligations. routes, services, and facilities of such carriers; and parties determine the monthly rent for the next ten-year the condemnation is still preempted because it prevents amount of rent for the cta's use of union pacific's prop- transportation board to administer the act. 49 u.s.c. forward. the cta's portion of the right of way consists tive effect of a federal statute. vill. of depue v. exxon tion was not preempted by the act, the condemnation portation. id. at *3. given this trend in case law and n. little rock v. union pac. r.r. co., no. 10-01689, 2011 wl lease. while it has the ability to end the lease and walk even if the tracks are located, or intended to be lord; a lessor with the ability to oust the lessee if it fails manion, circuit judge. union pacific railroad company in order to use it in the same manner it already does the terms of the agreement and use union pacific's prop- permanent easement over the right of way instead of circuit court has discussed the board's suggested frame- nor did it even mention the framework it previously favor, holding that the condemnation was both categori- 1992-2002 lease period, the cta's monthly rent was demnation, the same shared-property arrangement has property has a significant impact on railroad transporta- 49 u.s.c. 10501(b). congress also defined "transporta- definition of "regulation" is the "act or process of controlling under the supremacy clause, federal law "preempts state 13 acres. this property is valuable railroad land owned unwillingly vacating the property in the foreseeable 16 no. 09-2147 f. supp. 2d 241, 248-49 (s.d.n.y. 2006); dist. of columbia v. see, e.g., city of lincoln, 414 f.3d 858 (five-block-long strip8 at 860-62; buffalo s. r.r., inc. v. vill. of croton-on-hudson, 434 right of way. courts have found federal preemption in who valued the property at $25.9 million--setting the the cta contends that these rights are entirely insub- empted "as applied" due to its effect on railroad trans- right of way (just under 13 acres) to the cta, which is a tion of railroad transportation has been recognized as chicago transit authority, the jurisdiction of the board over-- a. overall cost. this creates a unique situation in which of way is already used in an identical way pursuant to cases involving takings of land that are smaller in area, railroad traffic, adjacent to but at a lower grade to existing conferred on the board "exclusive" jurisdiction over i. because union pacific has agreed to this significant gress's intent in the act to preempt state and local regula- 1519374 (e.d. ark. apr. 21, 2011) (30-foot-wide trail that would senger transportation--other than temporary shut- railroad operations. in sum, if the cta were not8 tion. the cta can always ask union pacific to enter into standard procedures to inspect and maintain the declaratory order, stb finance docket no. 34354, 2004 wl for the northern district of illinois, eastern division. sonably interfere with railroad transportation. in the9 other conditions. as long as the cta keeps its commit- 109,205.5 square feet of land, no. 05-202, 2005 wl 975745, at *3 if the cta were not already using the right of way may be no change in the state of railroad operations on southern railway company, issued by the board in 2010. to make rental payments or to fulfill any of the lease's mary judgment. o'rourke v. palisades acquisition xvi, the cta owns and operates two electric-powered local a municipal corporation, work and held that categorical preemption does not ry. co., 2010 wl 691256 (3.4-acre strip of land not used for the cost of maintaining the right of way and the joint in 1995, congress enacted the interstate commerce with the cta. but with the condemnation, the cta is variety of ways. in 2005, the board surveyed the impact on railroad transportation through its lease municipal corporation providing mass transportation line r.r. co., 2010 wl 2540695 (2.1-mile-long strip of land tion; but if it attempts to secure such use by regulation union pacific's property in a way that has a significant thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the continue to use the property in perpetuity as long as no. 09-2147 11 is exclusive. except as otherwise provided in this part, the body of case law on the matter, evinces an intent by con- cta requested a perpetual easement that would be soo line r.r. co. v. city of st. paul, no. 09-2311, 2010 wl would be the result of a condemnation. and this is sig- city of marshfield, 160 f. supp. 2d 1009, 1013 (w.d. wis. 2000); clearance that, by its nature, could be used to deny a rail- or local regulations, not contracts or other agreements, control a piece of land through the condemnation. the board been imposed upon union pacific by regulation. this sis should be used. also, other courts considering con-4 sarily varies with the facts of the case and the specific 7-25-11 facilities, including constructing new joint facilities. pacific had no immediate plans to use the property, a equipment "related to the movement of passengers or (instead of an agreement or contract) that prevents or tion provides that the constitution and laws of the seeking, by regulation and not by agreement, to use railroad company was not using nor had any current empted by the act.2 sonably interferes with railroad transportation. if a state interfere with loading and dealing with derailments); soo 2 no. 09-2147 tensive with the lease. but even if it were coextensive, we believe, however, that for the condemnation case the right of way consists of an elevated structure on the regulation of railroad transportation: and property rights of the parties are the same both courts have treated preemption under the act in a (...continued)2 affects union pacific's current railroad operations. the 395835, at *2 (s.t.b. mar. 2, 2004). sonably interferes with railroad transportation; it applies has no current plans to use the property because of cases should be addressed; a categorical analysis may arguing that the state condemnation was preempted by suggested framework and found that the condemnation approximately 33 feet away from railroad line); norfolk s. co.--petition for declaratory order, stb finance docket no. 34915, piece of property. when considering a standard regula- (2) a "state or local regulation of matters directly regulated impact on railroad transportation. and a regulation conflicting appraisals of the right of way's fair market commission termination act and created the surface framework). categorical preemption occurs when a state ity--using the board's framework for both a categorical to either accept $7,564,400 for a "perpetual easement" case before us, however, the use of the property is not ("iccta" or "act"), 49 u.s.c. 10501(b). the district remedies to enforce an easement's obligations does not form of regulation, and using state eminent domain law to owner was not using and had no present plan to use, but de novo the district court's determination of the preemp- than a party filing a lawsuit to enforce the terms of an states constitution. see u.s. const. art. i, 8. like the district cided after the district court issued its opinion. the *4. even if the property was not being used and union7 empted by federal law. the judgment of the district court agreed and granted the injunction. the cta now easement is not coextensive with the lease as the parties' at 860 ("condemnation is a permanent action, and it can transportation, if it fails to make rental payments, or if easement. in short, union pacific would lose valuable tions where the use of property prevents or unrea- asking whether the condemnation of railroad property before and after the condemnation. property. union pacific declined the offer. true to its court, we decline to consider this question because the fed-


All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise