Preseault v. United States

100 F.3d 1525 (1996)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Congress enacted 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) to preserve discontinued rail corridors for future railroad use and permitting public recreational use of discontinued rights of way. The Act gave the ICC authority to authorize abandonment of the line or to permit discontinuance of rail service and transfer of the railroad right of way to the public or a public group willing to maintain the right of way as a public trail. A railroad shut down service in 1970 and in 1975 removed its railroad tracks. It never applied for an abandonment order as required under the Transportation Act of 1920. In 1985, the railroad entered into an agreement with the State of Vermont and the City of Burlington that the latter would maintain the railroad strip as a public trail. The ICC approved this agreement. The underlying owners of the fee simple, over which the railroad tracks formerly ran, the Presaults (P) sued claiming the act that allowed the taking, the Rails-to-Trails Act was unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the act was an appropriate exercise of Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce but held that P may have a remedy under the Fifth Amendment; Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 494 U.S. 1 (1990). P then sued for the taking under the Fifth Amendment. The issue at trial was whether the railroad took a fee simple or an easement when it was initially granted its right of way rights, whether it abandoned the easement and whether P was due compensation for a taking. P relies upon the traditional rule of takings law that the permanent physical occupation of property by the government or the public is a taking of the owners’ property. The government denied liability under The Fifth Amendment. The trial court ruled against P and P appealed.