Caquelin v. United States
697 F. App'x 1016
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- The Caquelins owned land subject to a railroad easement limited to railroad use; the easement dated from 1870 and would terminate if the railroad abandoned the line.
- In May 2013 the railroad filed a Notice of Exemption with the Surface Transportation Board (STB) asserting it had not run trains for years and seeking permission to abandon the line.
- On July 3, 2013 the STB issued a 180-day Notice of Interim Trail Use or Abandonment (NITU), which temporarily barred abandonment to permit trail negotiations with third-party trail sponsors (not the Caquelins). The NITU allowed salvage and did not presuppose resumed rail service.
- No trail agreement was reached and the STB did not extend the 180-day period; the railroad completed abandonment soon after the NITU lapsed and the easement terminated, returning unburdened title to the Caquelins.
- The Caquelins sued under the Tucker Act alleging the NITU’s temporary blocking of reversion constituted a compensable temporary (categorical) taking; the Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment for the Caquelins relying on this court’s precedent in Ladd.
- The government appealed, arguing the NITU requires a multi-factor regulatory-takings analysis (Penn Central/Arkansas Game framework) rather than a categorical rule; it also urged overruling Ladd en banc. The panel vacated and remanded for development of a factual record applying the multi-factor test, while noting Ladd remains controlling precedent absent en banc reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the STB’s 180-day NITU that barred reversion constituted a taking | Caquelin: NITU was a categorical taking because it temporarily prevented termination of a rail-only easement and deprived owners of unburdened title | United States: NITU is not a categorical taking; apply multi-factor regulatory/temporary-takings tests (Penn Central/Arkansas Game) | Panel: Ladd precedent would support a taking, but remanded to develop record applying the multi-factor analysis the government urges before resolving merits or considering en banc review |
| Appropriate takings framework: categorical rule vs. multi-factor test | Caquelin: categorical approach applies for government-authorized nonrail trail use that exceeds easement scope | United States: apply Penn Central/Arkansas Game multi-factor analysis rather than per se rule | Panel: Did not decide which framework ultimately governs; ordered record development under multi-factor assumption to allow comparison with Ladd |
| Whether this panel should overrule Ladd based on later Supreme Court decisions | Caquelin: Ladd governs; categorical taking recognized | United States: Ladd should be overruled en banc in light of post-Ladd Supreme Court cases | Panel: Not deciding now; suggested en banc review may be warranted but remanded first for a fuller record |
| Remedy/procedure on appeal | Caquelin: judgment for compensation affirmed under Ladd | United States: vacate and remand for multi-factor factual analysis | Held: Judgment vacated and remanded to Court of Federal Claims to develop record and apply multi-factor analysis (assuming it governs), then issue findings for appellate review |
Key Cases Cited
- Toews v. United States, 376 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir.) (rails-to-trails NITU can effect categorical taking when government-authorized trail use exceeds easement)
- Ladd v. United States, 630 F.3d 1015 (Fed. Cir.) (panel precedent holding NITU constitutes taking)
- Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (Fed. Cir.) (NITU accrual rule for statute of limitations)
- Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (2012) (temporary physical invasions require multi-factor takings analysis)
- Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, 135 S. Ct. 2419 (2015) (discussion of categorical takings and per se rules)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (multi-factor regulatory-takings framework)