Ladd v. United States
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25443
| Fed. Cir. | 2010Background
- Appellants own land in Cochise County, Arizona near the U.S.-Mexico border.
- In 1903, El Paso & Southwestern Railroad acquired a 100-foot wide, 76.2-mile right-of-way under the 1875 Act and private conveyances; appellants claim fee simple interests still underlay the easement.
- In 2003, San Pedro Railroad Operating Co. acquired El Paso’s rights; in 2005 San Pedro sought abandonment of the entire line under 49 U.S.C. § 10502.
- STB issued a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) on July 25, 2006, suspending abandonment to allow trail-use negotiations with the Trust for Public Land.
- San Pedro removed rails and ties; negotiations extended for a Northern Stretch; no trail was established; abandonment remained pending for the remainder of the line; appellants allege that NITU forestalled state-law reversionary interests and caused a taking.
- The Court of Federal Claims held no taking occurred, ruling a NITU does not trigger a compensable taking absent trail establishment and that accrual began when a NITU issued, not upon later physical occupancy.
- The landowners appealed; the Federal Circuit reviews de novo on summary judgment, applying Takings Clause law to determine whether a taking occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the NITU constitutes a takings event. | Caldwell/Barclay show accrual at NITU. | NITU is a regulatory hold; no physical taking occurs without trail conversion. | Accrual of a taking occurs at NITU issuance; remand for compensation determination. |
| When does a Rails-to-Trails takings claim accrue—at NITU issuance or later upon trail development? | Bright-line Caldwell rule accrues at NITU. | Accrual may depend on later events; NITU alone not a permanent taking. | Caldwell/Barclay control: accrual occurs at NITU issuance; six-year clock begins then. |
| Is the take temporary or permanent, and what damages are recoverable? | Temporary or permanent taking may occur; Caldwell/Barclay permit temporary takings. | Without trail establishment, no compensable taking. | Temporary or permanent takings can be compensable; duration affects damages, not liability. |
| Does delay caused by remaining abandonment proceedings affect whether a taking occurred? | NITU forecloses reversion; taking accrues at NITU. | Delays in consummation are regulatory delay, not takings. | Delay post-NITU does not defeat accrual; the NITU itself triggers liability under precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (Fed.Cir.2005) (accrual at issuance of NITU; NITU blocks reversion and may yield temporary/taking outcomes)
- Barclay v. United States, 443 F.3d 1368 (Fed.Cir.2006) (accrual on NITU issuance; NITU is barrier to reversion, not possession change)
- Preseault v. International Commerce Comm’n, 494 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (Takings doctrine in Rails-to-Trails contexts; general standard)
- Ellamae Phillips Co. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1367 (Fed.Cir.2009) (rails-to-trails takings; accrual considerations in conversions)
- Boling v. United States, 220 F.3d 1365 (Fed.Cir.2000) (general accrual principles for takings claims)