Ladd v. United States, 646 F.3d 910

Appellants own land in Cochise County, Arizona, along a 76.2-mile rail corridor originally granted to El Paso & Southwestern Railway under the 1875 Act, with appellants claiming fee simple estates underlying the railway.
In 2003, San Pedro Railroad Operating Company acquired El Paso's rights and sought to abandon the line; STB granted abandonment subject to conditions and required a notice of consummation after track salvage if abandonment occurred.
The Trust for Public Land sought a Notice of Interim Trail Use or Abandonment (NITU) under the Trails Act to pursue a rail-trail conversion; San Pedro agreed to negotiate a trail use agreement.
A July 25, 2006 NITU suspended abandonment and extended negotiating periods, with a Northern Stretch (Highway 92 to Curtiss Flats) given a longer negotiation window; San Pedro later removed rails and ties from the Northern Stretch.
Negotiations failed; San Pedro filed notices of consummation for portions of the line and extended deadlines delayed by STB, while appellants alleged the NITU forestalled or took their state-law reversionary interests.
The Court of Federal Claims held no compensable taking as no public trail had been established and the railroad retained control of the easement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does NITU issuance by STB amount to a compensable taking when no trail is established?	Ladd asserts Caldwell/Barclay show NITU-triggered taking even without trail.	Government contends NITU is a temporary regulatory hold, not a physical taking absent trail.	Taking accrues at NITU, but the court treats issue as resolved by precedent (reversed in part).
When does an accrual and limitations period begin for Rails-to-Trails takings claims?	Caldwell/Barclay require accrual at NITU regardless of subsequent trail status.	Accrual may be postponed until physical occupation or trail use occurs.	Court adheres to Caldwell/Barclay: accrual begins at NITU issuance; limitations clock starts then.
Is the six-year limitations period a bar to recovery given the NITU accrual date?	Six-year limit may expire after extensions even if trail never established.	Limitations begin at accrual; extensions and later events do not revive or reset the clock.	Six-year period runs from NITU; claim barred or not depending on timing, but remanded for compensation determination.
Whether the possibility of a future trail use can yield temporary vs permanent takings and affect liability.	Temporary takings can occur prior to trail establishment under Caldwell/Barclay.	NITU alone does not cause a taking; only if trail use agreement or conversion occurs.	Temporary taking may occur if no trail is reached; NITU can foreclose reversion regardless of eventual trail.

Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (NITU accrual rule: accrual upon NITU issuance; potential temporary or permanent taking depending on later events)
Barclay v. United States, 443 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (NITU as barrier to reversion; accrual when NITU issued; series of NITUs treated as continuous action)
Preseault v. Int'l. Comm'n, 494 U.S. 1 (1990) (general framework for takings in rails-to-trails; conversion outside original easement scope)
Ellamae Phillips Co. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (rails-to-trails takings; assessing when a takings claim can arise)
Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of Cal., 522 U.S. 192 (U.S. 1997) (limits on accrual timing; complete and present cause of action requirement)
Yuba Natural Res., Inc. v. United States, 821 F.2d 638 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (early rails-to-trails takings framework and accrual concepts)
In re Illig v. United States, 274 Fed.Appx. 883 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (post-Caldwell/Barclay discussion on accrual timing (non-official reporter))