AI Assistant
Notifications
Clear all

General Railroad Right of Way Act of 1875

7 Posts
6 Users
0 Reactions
455 Views
Bryan Newsome
(@bryan-newsome)
Posts: 427
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Story in USA Today.
Up before SCOTUS

Landowners vs Government


 
Posted : January 14, 2014 6:16 pm
bill93
(@bill93)
Posts: 9977
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

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.


 
Posted : January 14, 2014 6:45 pm
Pablo
(@pablo)
Posts: 444
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

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-)


 
Posted : January 14, 2014 8:29 pm
Borderline Survey Pro
(@borderline-survey-pro)
Posts: 37
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

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!


 
Posted : January 14, 2014 9:15 pm
Borderline Survey Pro
(@borderline-survey-pro)
Posts: 37
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

didn't mean to say government row, just row.


 
Posted : January 14, 2014 9:37 pm

Dave Ingram
(@dave-ingram)
Posts: 2140
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

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.


 
Posted : January 15, 2014 10:29 am
Jim in AZ
(@jim-in-az)
Posts: 3374
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

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.


 
Posted : January 15, 2014 11:02 am