Union Pacific Railroad v. Chicago Transit Authority

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, even though the railroad property was not currently being used for transportation, the ICCTA applied because a taking would prevent the railroad from using the property for future transportation needs
• holding that, even though the railroad property was not currently being used for railroad transportation, the ICCTA applied because a taking would prevent the railroad from using the property in the future for transportation
• observing that preemption hinges on whether the condemnation prevents or unreasonably interferes with railroad transportation
• finding that a claim would be completely preempted “[e]ven if the property was not being used and Union Pa- cific had no immediate plans to use the property”
• using \as applied\ analysis to determine whether condemnation of 2.8-mile portion of right-of-way for local rail service was preempted by ICCTA
• considering effect on “Union Pacific’s current railroad operations, including requiring Union Pacific to use nonstandard procedures to maintain [one] Right of Way”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).