ILNews

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.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT