A-117-11 Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Intermodal Properties, LLC (070240)
215 N.J. 142
| N.J. | 2013Background
- Norfolk Southern (railroad) operates Croxton Yard, a busy intermodal freight facility in Secaucus, NJ, facing high utilization, double-parking, and rising dwell times; railroad sought nearby land to add ~291 container parking spaces and improve efficiency.
- Norfolk Southern negotiated to buy Intermodal Properties’ adjacent 5.99-acre parcel; after offers were rejected, the railroad filed for condemnation under NJ statutes authorizing public utilities and railroads to use eminent domain.
- Intermodal proposed an alternative use: a commuter parking facility for Secaucus Junction, and obtained rezoning during the administrative proceedings.
- An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) precluded Intermodal from presenting evidence of its proposed parking use under the prior public use doctrine and found the railroad’s taking “not incompatible with the public interest.”
- The ALJ also held that the statutory phrase “exigencies of business” does not require an emergency; it permits condemnation when the ordinary needs or reasonable business demands of the railroad justify acquisition.
- The Appellate Division affirmed; the New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification and affirmed the Appellate Division’s rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether taking must be barred if owner proposes an alternative use that better serves public interest (N.J.S.A. 48:3-17.7: taking must be “not incompatible with the public interest”) | Norfolk Southern: focus on condemnor’s proposed use; alternative private/future uses are irrelevant where no prior public use exists | Intermodal: should be allowed to present its rezoned plan (commuter parking) as a superior public use to defeat condemnation | Held: Owner cannot invoke prior public use doctrine because it lacked condemnation power and the proposed parking was speculative/private; statute focuses on condemnor’s proposed use, not comparing alternative proposals. |
| Meaning of “exigencies of business” limiting railroad condemnation power (N.J.S.A. 48:12-35.1) | Norfolk Southern: phrase contemplates long-term planning and reasonable business needs, not immediate emergency | Intermodal: phrase requires a present, definite, or urgent need — more than generalized future projections | Held: “Exigencies of business” is a term of art historically meaning general needs or ordinary course of business; it does not demand an emergency or immediate need. |
Key Cases Cited
- Twp. of W. Orange v. 769 Assocs., LLC, 172 N.J. 564 (2002) (defines “public use” as public benefit and affirms railroad/terminal facilities can constitute public use)
- Twp. of Weehawken v. Erie R.R. Co., 20 N.J. 572 (1956) (origin and application of prior public use doctrine in disputes between condemning authorities)
- Texas E. Transmission Corp. v. Wildlife Preserves, Inc., 48 N.J. 261 (1966) (prior public use doctrine does not protect private entities lacking condemnation power)
- State v. Haight, 35 N.J.L. 40 (Sup. Ct. 1870) (historical use of “exigencies of business” to distinguish lands held for present business needs versus speculative convenience)
- Dotson v. Erie R.R. Co., 68 N.J.L. 679 (Ct. Err. & App. 1903) (uses “exigencies of business” to describe ordinary operational needs of railroad facilities)