Farmers Cooperative Co. v. United States
98 Fed. Cl. 797
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Plaintiffs seek a Fifth Amendment taking liability against the United States for railroad rights-of-way held by Kansas & Oklahoma Railroad in four Kansas counties.
- Defendant cross-moved for partial summary judgment on liability or, alternatively, for liability limited to a temporary taking duration.
- The STB issued multiple NITUs during rail banking negotiations, which suspended abandonment and precluded vesting of state-law reversionary interests.
- The court holds that the STB’s NITU actions constitute a taking of Plaintiffs’ reversionary interests, but only for temporary duration.
- The period of the taking is continuous from the initial NITU through the expiration of final NITUs for each corridor, not a series of separate takings tied to each NITU.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the STB actions caused a taking | Ladd/Preseault II support taking | No taking absent conversion to trail use | Taking found; STB actions caused a taking. |
| Scope of the easement and railroad purposes | Kansas law limits easement to railroad purposes, excluding trails | Railroad easement may be broader, including rail banking/temporary trails | Easement scope limited to railroad purposes; trail use conflicts with scope. |
| Timing/duration of the taking | Taking lasts through trail negotiations and NITUs | Taking lasts only for 180-day periods per NITU | Taking is continuous from initial NITU through final NITU expirations. |
| Abandonment liability and vesting of reversionary interests | NITU procedure blocked reversionary vesting | Abandonment could proceed post-NITU if triggered | NITU blocking and subsequent actions prevented vesting; taking occurred. |
| Series of NITUs as separate takings vs. single continuous taking | Each NITU could create a separate taking | Barclay treats NITUs as extensions of a single action | Takings treated as a continuous, single action from first NITU through last expiration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Preseault II, 100 F.3d 1525 (Fed.Cir.1996) (three-part takings framework for rails-to-trails)
- Barclay v. United States, 443 F.3d 1368 (Fed.Cir.2006) (NITU series treated as continuous taking; bright-line accrual)
- Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (Fed.Cir.2004) (NITU as mechanism preventing abandonment; takings trigger)
- Ladd v. United States, 630 F.3d 1015 (Fed.Cir.2010) (taking may be temporary when no trial use agreement reached)
- Nordhus Family Trust v. United States, 98 Fed.Cl. 331 (Fed.Cl. 2011) (rails-to-trails decisions construing Kansas law; scope of easement)
- NARPO v. STB, 158 F.3d 135 (D.C.Cir.1998) (rail banking and interim trail use; jurisdictional aspects)