149 F. Supp. 3d 1107
W.D. Ark.2015Background
- Crossing at Oliver Street over Union Pacific tracks was an at-grade easement serving Ozark and nearby properties.
- FRA registry maps and city records indicate the Crossing was public; Union Pacific’s predecessor maps label it as public since 1916, 1946, and 2000.
- Union Pacific closed the Crossing in 2001 after an oral request by Ozark's mayor, spending funds to remove asphalt and later adding a side track for rail operations.
- Ozark seeks to reopen the Crossing to enable riverfront development and pedestrian access.
- Arkansas law § 14-301-301 et seq. requires city Council action and an ordinance to vacate a public easement, which Ozark argues did not occur; the City filed this lawsuit in 2014 after negotiations failed.
- The court held that the Crossing was public and closed unlawfully, denied Union Pacific's summary judgment on preemption, and granted Ozark partial summary judgment for declaratory and injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Crossing a public or private easement? | Ozark; Crossing was public based on maps and conveyances. | Union Pacific; records could show otherwise, not conclusively public. | Crossing deemed public based on Union Pacific maps and City conveyances. |
| Was closure of the Crossing lawful under Ark. Code § 14-301-304? | Closure required city council vote and ordinance; oral mayoral order insufficient. | UP relied on mayoral authorization to close. | Closure violated § 14-301-304; judgment for Ozark on Count I. |
| Does ICCTA preempt Ozark's claims? | Not required; state-law procedures govern closure. | ICCTA preempts state actions affecting railroad operations. | ICCTA preemption not applicable given unlawful closure; preemption denied. |
| Are laches, waiver, or estoppel valid defenses? | Equitable defenses do not bar public-right claims; city preserved rights. | City slept on rights; delays prejudicial. | Laches denied; waiver and estoppel defenses denied. |
| Is a permanent injunction appropriate? | Reopen Crossing to restore at-grade public access. | Reopening would disrupt rail operations and safety. | Permanent injunction granted; UP to restore Crossing to pre-2001 condition and cover costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bushmiaer v. City of Little Rock, 231 Ark. 848 (Ark. 1960) (public right of way irrevocable absent proper procedures; abandonment not allowed)
- Thomas v. City of Little Rock, 52 Ark. App. 24, 914 S.W.2d 328 (Ark. Ct. App. 1996) (public easement cannot be lost through abandonment; §14-301-301 powers to vacate public rights)
- City of Paragould v. Lawson, 88 Ark. 478, 115 S.W. 379 (Ark. 1908) (public-right-of-way cannot be forfeited without proper procedural action)
- United States v. Int'l Minerals & Chem. Corp., 402 U.S. 558 (U.S. 1971) (ignorance of law is no defense; public procedures required)
- Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C.L. Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (four-factor test for permanent injunctions)