Skip to main content
· 2/26/1905

Kansas City, S. & G. Ry. Co. v. Louisiana W. R.

Citations

  • 116 La. 178
  • 40 So. 627
  • 1905 La. LEXIS 765

Syllabus

<p>1. Railroads — Connections and Crossings —Spur Tracks.</p> <p>The constitutional right of a railroad company to intersect, connect with, or cross any other railroad is not confined to main tracks, but extends to spur and other tracks forming a part of the same system.</p> <p>2. Same—Public Highways.</p> <p>All railroads are declared by the Constitution to be public highways and ail railroad companies to be common carriers. This declaration applies, not only to main tracks, but also to ail subsidiary tracks used for the purposes of railroad traffic.</p> <p>3. Eminent Domain—Public Use—Crossing Other Roads.</p> <p>Where a proposed spur track is intended for the transfer of freight in car load lots to and from a number of industrial plants in a town or city, its use is open to the public, and the railroad company constructing such a track has the right to expropriate necessary crossings over the spur tracks of another railroad company. Act No. 74, p. 103, of 1902.</p> <p>4. Same—Location—Number.</p> <p>The location and number of such crossings and their necessity involve questions of fact properly submitted to the jury of freeholders.</p> <p>5. Same—Compensation—Elements of Damage.</p> <p>Where the plaintiff company takes nothing but the easement of crossing, the compensation should be based on the depreciation in value of the property resulting from the joint ■ use of the tracks. The value of the portion actually used, and the consequent depreciation, if any, of the value of the remainder for railroad purpose, should be considered; but mere interruption or inconvenience in the transaction of business, increased liability to accidents, and the stopping or flagging of trains at crossings, if required by statute or ordinances, do not constitute elements of damage.</p> <p>6. Same—Award—Appeal.</p> <p>In case of railroad crossings, where nothing is actually taken but the joint use of small portions of spur tracks, and the injury to the remainder for railroad purposes is

How courts have described this case

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

  • rejecting request to exclude allegations made “upon information and belief” at the motion to dismiss stage
  • quoiting Jackson-Cobb v. Sprint United Management, 173 F.Supp.3d 1139, 1149 (D. Colo. 2016)
  • quoiting Jackson-Cobb v. Sprint United Management, 173 F.Supp.3d 1139, 1149 (D. Colo. 2016)
  • quoiting Jackson-Cobb v. Sprint United Management, 173 F.Supp.3d 1139, 1149 (D. Colo. 2016)
  • “[T]he question is whether such allegations are supported by specific facts asserted by the Complaint.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Land

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.