Adrian & Blissfield Railroad v. Village of Blissfield

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that state law will be pre-empted if it serves to prevent the railroad from carrying out its operations
• holding that state law will be pre-empted if it serves to prevent the railroad from carrying out its operations
• holding Michigan statute requiring railroads to construct, or compensate municipalities for construction of, sidewalks across railway crossings was not impliedly preempted by ICCTA
• identifying circumstances for proving a law is “preempted as applied” and “requir[ing] a factual assessment” (emphasis in original, internal quotation marks and citations omitted)
• “Regarding the unreasonable-burden prong, the substance of the regulation must not be so draconian that it prevents the railroad from carrying out its business in a sensible fashion.” (cleaned up)
• \We doubt whether increased operating costs are alone sufficient to establish 'unreasonable' interference with railroad operations.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).