Justices rule on railbanking certified question

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has issued an answer to a certified question about how state law plays into a federal railroad right-of-way case that involves property owners who want their land rights back for easements that once belonged to a railroad company.  

In Henry L. Howard, et al. v. United States, No. 94S00-1106-CQ-333, a majority determined that federal laws on railbanking and interim trail use are not land uses within the scope of the easements dictated by Indiana law, and that railbanking with interim trail use does not constitute a permissible shifting public use.

The case arises from a certified question posed by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C. Focused on property owners’ rights in Cass and Pulaski counties, this federal case involves 128 plaintiffs who are challenging the U.S. government’s authority to use their land that had once been owned by railroads in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The residents live in counties adjacent to the 21-mile railroad line that hasn’t been active since 2002. The residents argue the land rights of a nearby easement returned to them in 2003, but the federal government disagreed and tried to use a legal maneuver known as railbanking to keep land rights of that easement. The government argues that under Indiana law, the railroad rights-of-way hadn’t been abandoned and there was no unjust taking of land as the property owners contend.

Pulaski County resident Henry Howard filed a class-action lawsuit in September 2009, alleging that the federal government violated the Fifth Amendment provision prohibiting the taking of one’s property for public use without just compensation. The Department of Justice in December 2010 asked the federal judge to certify a question to the Indiana Supreme Court.

In a ruling written by Justice Brent Dickson, the Indiana court held that a public trail is not within the scope of easements acquired for the purpose of operating a line of railways. The original purpose was to transmit goods by train, and Dickson wrote that the easement can’t now be recast for the use of a public recreational trail without exceeding the scope of the easement and infringing on the landowners’ rights.

State precedent from 1968 makes clear that the focus of an easement remains on the purpose at the time of its acquisition, Dickson wrote. Indiana has never recognized the “shifting public use” doctrine and the justices declined to do so here.

Chief Justice Randall Shepard disagreed with his four colleagues, concluding that the contemplated railbanking and interim trail uses do fall within the scope of the easements presented.



Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.