Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Lewellen

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that railroad easements had been abandoned and thus could not be transferred to railroad corridor trails group
• noting that “the common law on whether abandonment has occurred was superseded by” statute in 1987
• acknowledging the contention that deeds should be construed in light of “the statute in place at the time the deeds were executed,” but “emphasiz[ing] that the language of the deeds in question . . . [did] not trace the cited property statutes”
• acknowledging the contention that deeds should be construed in light of “the statute in place at the time the deeds were executed,” but “emphasiz[ing] that the language of the deeds in question . . . [did] not trace the cited property statutes”
• acknowledging the contention that deeds should be construed in light of “the statute in place at the time the deeds were executed,” but “emphasiz[ing] that the language of the deeds in question . . . [did] not trace the cited property statutes”
• acknowledging the contention that deeds should be construed in light of “the statute in place at the time the deeds were executed,” but “emphasiz[ing] that the language of the deeds in question . . . [did] not trace the cited property statutes”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).