The Dana R. Hodges Trust v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “other than asserting state law claims of abandonment, [p]laintiffs are no- wise impeded from exercising whatever rights of access they held that pre-existed the conversion of the railroad corridor to recreational usage.”
• finding that if limitations on crossing rights diminished the highest and best use of land, this diminished value should be reflected in the valuation of the after condition, thus forming the basis for just compensation, but would not “legally foreclose[]” a plaintiff’s crossing rights
• rejecting landowners’ argument that state laws granting right of crossing are pre-empted and holding that the landowners were in “no-wise impeded from exercising whatever rights of access they held that pre-existed the conversion of the railroad corridor to recreational usage”
• rejecting argument that trail easement eliminated crossing rights
• rejecting argument that trail easement eliminated crossing rights

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).