Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]

Preseault v. United States. | 100 F.3d 1525 (1996)

Throughout the United States, more than twenty thousand miles of abandoned railroad right-of-ways have been converted into public recreational trails through the national rails-to-trails program. The biggest issue involved with this conversion is whether the change in use from a right-of-way to a public recreational trail constitutes a taking under the Fifth Amendment. Preseault versus United States is the seminal case discussing this issue.

J. Paul and Patricia Preseault owned land in fee simple near the shore of Lake Champlain in Burlington, Vermont. Beginning in 1899, the Rutland-Canadian Railroad Company acquired a right-of-way for transportation on part of the land and operated a railroad. Over time, the right-of-way interest passed to several successor railroads until transportation stopped in 1970. Five years later, in 1975, the tracks and equipment were permanently removed from the land.

In 1985, the State of Vermont and the City of Burlington agreed to a plan that would create public recreational trails out of land previously used by the railroad. Under the Rails-to-Trails Act of 1983, Congress granted the Interstate Commerce Commission, or ICC, the power to transfer land previously used for railroad transportation to public or private entities willing to maintain the land as a trail. One year later, in 1986, the ICC approved the agreement between the state and the city and transferred the land to the City of Burlington.

The Preseaults objected and sought review of the decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Court. They argued, in part, that the Rails-to-Trails Act was unconstitutional on its face because it permitted a taking without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The court of appeals disagreed, and the United States Supreme Court affirmed, but it remanded the case to the United States Court of Federal Claims, concluding the Preseaults might be entitled to compensation for a taking.

After a hearing, the Court of Federal Claims, which has jurisdiction over takings cases, granted the United States summary judgment and held that the Preseaults weren’t entitled to compensation for a taking. The Preseaults appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]

The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

свернуть