RR easement case

steffan · Post by **steffan** » Thu Nov 06, 2014 8:37 pm

Interesting case out of CA 2nd Appellate District. Long story short, this is another decision affirming that those certain RR rights of way which are not held by the RR in fee simple, are nothing more than easements only for the surface use of the railroad (& telegraph). I suppose this means if a muncipality or utility wants to bore a sewer main under certain portions of a railroad, the railroad might not have much to say about it, providing it doesn't compromise its facilities.

Some similiarities to the recent U.S. Supreme Court case of Brandt v US which nixed the claim of reversionary rights, the decision based on the premise of the RR R/W not being as unique, far reaching or exclusive of a right as some would believe.

PLS8153 · Post by **PLS8153** » Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:51 am

Thanks Jeff, I always look forward to your informative posts.

Proud7191 · Post by **Proud7191** » Fri Nov 07, 2014 9:44 am

Thanks, some great history inside. Jp

Ric7308 · Post by **Ric7308** » Fri Nov 07, 2014 9:54 am

"Odd = Fee, Even = ROW"

"After 1875, RR = Easement"

Nice discussion on the history of these events. Thanks Jeff.

dedkad · Post by **dedkad** » Fri Nov 07, 2014 1:16 pm

I got bored and stopped reading at page 29. Boy, those lawyers sure can ramble. My take-away from this is that this ruling will have no impact on my agency since it applies only to congressional RR grants, and I believe all of the RR ROW within our jurisdiction was granted by private property owners.

For those who are potentially impacted, can you imagine approaching the adjacent landowners asking for an easement across the RR ROW for something like a sewer line? The adjacent property owner would probably go, "huh?"