Story in USA Today.
Up before SCOTUS
I think the question, which was not stated in the article, was whether the railroads were given fee title or an easement. I suspect there is a pretty good case that most of it was in fee. However, it could also be within the power of eminent domain for governments to force the sale to them of land for some of the uses. That would render the effect only a matter of compensation, not what use is made.
The article quoted several justices on the impact a ruling would have. I thought they were supposed to decide on legal principles, not based on who it would affect.
This should be an interesting case. It's just a few miles SW of Laramie, WY where the landowner filed suit against the US. I think the justices are still confused about reversionary rights and it will all come out in the wash. The testimony would be a good case to sit in on if it's being tried before the court.
Pablo B-)
I always thought that when a government right of way is abandoned, the land reverts to the adjoining landowners. I'm not sure why this is going to the scotus. guess I'll find out!
didn't mean to say government row, just row.
There was a fairly significant case ....
a while back concerning reversionary rights versus converting to rails-to-trail. In spite of some very clear language in the deeds about reversion, the courts ruled that rails-to-trails won. I think there logic (or illogic) was that if the railroad was ever needed they could convert it back to rail easier from rails-to-trail than from having to reacquire right-of-way.
EDIT - I just read the article referred to in the original post and it sounds like one or more of the cases I referred to is being appealed.
Interesting - I have little if any problem understanding the Act itself or the 1942 decision. It is clearly an easement for railroad purposes... Warren Buffet purchased the Burlington Northern Railway with the thought that he could overturn the 1942 case and install a private transcontinental fiber optic communication line. There will be millions spent on attorneys in the next 10 years on this... and the taxpayers will pay for half of them.
