City of Girard v. Youngstown Belt Railway Co.
979 N.E.2d 1273
Ohio2012Background
- Girard seeks to appropriate 41.5 acres of Mosier Yard; 13.5 acres retained contain track/right-of-way.
- Mosier Yard is 55 acres; only 3–4 acres used intermittently for staging/storage.
- Youngstown Railway plans to develop land for rail-serviced industrial use; sale to Total Waste Logistics contemplated but not consummated.
- City ordinance resolutions (2004, 2006) initiated eminent-domain action; cauSe to condemn undeveloped land.
- District and appellate courts grappled with ICCTA preemption and whether state courts can adjudicate preemption before STB.
- Court decides ICCTA does not preempt the eminent-domain action under the facts presented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ICCTA preempts the city’s eminent-domain action. | Girard contends preemption applies given potential interference with rail transportation. | Youngstown Railway argues action would burden rail transportation and fall under STB jurisdiction. | Not preempted; state court may adjudicate preemption under ICCTA on the facts. |
| Does present use of Mosier Yard constitute rail transportation. | N/A | N/A | Present use (undeveloped land, no tracks) does not constitute rail transportation, no preemption. |
| Do future plans by Youngstown Railway to develop with Total Waste Logistics trigger preemption. | N/A | Contemplated future plans could affect interstate commerce as rail transportation. | Unspecified future plans are too speculative; not enough to establish preemption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Chicago Transit Auth., 647 F.3d 675 (7th Cir.2011) (eminent-domain issues on rail right-of-way and preemption analysis)
- New York & Atlantic Ry. Co. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 635 F.3d 66 (2d Cir.2011) (transloading/ownership context and ICCTA scope)
- Hi Tech Trans, L.L.C. v. New Jersey, 382 F.3d 295 (3d Cir.2004) (non-rail-carrier operations on rail property not ‘rail transportation’ under ICCTA)
- Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. West Palm Beach, 266 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.2001) (categorical vs as-applied preemption framework under ICCTA)
- Emerson v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 503 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir.2007) (narrow tailoring of ICCTA preemption; field-regulation proximity)