Citation network
Preseault Vs. Icc
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 02, 1986
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 1 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Preseault v. ICCSearch
-
U.S. 1 (1990) Preseault v. InterstateSearch
-
to withdraw the Tucker Act remedy that is necessary to preclude a claim under that Act. See Ruckelshaus v. MonsantoSearch
-
jurisdiction to regulate abandonments, Chicago & North Western Transp. Co. v. KaloSearch
-
and to impose conditions affecting post-abandonment use of the property. See Hayfield Northern R. Co. v. ChicagoSearch
-
still exercised exclusive jurisdiction over it. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed. Trustees of the Diocese of Vermont v. StateSearch
-
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. CountySearch
-
See Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. HamiltonSearch
-
Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U. S. 102 , 419 U. S. 124 -125 (1974) (quoting Cherokee Nation v. SouthernSearch
-
Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n, 473 U.S. at 473 U. S. 195 -195 (quoting Ruckelshaus v. MonsantoSearch
-
United States v. RiversideSearch
-
Duke Power Co. v. CarolinaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Monsanto, 467 U.S. at 467 U. S. 1019 , that is necessary to preclude a Tucker Act claim. See Glosemeyer v. Missouri-Kansas-TexasSearch
-
Petitioners insist that such unauthorized government actions cannot create Tucker Act liability, citing Hooe v. UnitedSearch
-
to pay just compensation which individual laws need not reiterate. Yearsley v. W.ASearch
-
trail conversions will amount to takings. Some rights-of-way are held in fee simple. See National Wildlife Federation v. ICCSearch
-
Hodel v. VirginiaSearch
-
Ibid. (quoting Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
Hodel v. IndianaSearch
-
ways of redesigning the statute to advance one of Congress' ends does not render it irrational. See, e.g., Minnesota v. CloverSearch
-
foreseeable. Given the long tradition of congressional regulation of railroad abandonments, see, e.g., Colorado v. UnitedSearch
-
ed.), as a general proposition ICC jurisdiction terminates. See Hayfield Northern R. Co. v. ChicagoSearch
-
National Wildlife Federation v. ICCSearch
-
Historic Preservation v. ICCSearch
-
Washington State Dept. of Game v. ICCSearch
-
of-way for public travel so as to trigger reversionary rights. See State by Washington Wildlife Preservation, Inc. v. StateSearch
-
Reiger v. PennSearch
-
Ruckelshaus v. MonsantoSearch
-
Co., 467 U. S. 986 , 467 U. S. 1001 (1984), quoting Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. BeckwithSearch
-
federal grants of railway easements may influence certain disputes over interests in land, see Great Northern R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Idaho v. OregonSearch
-
railway right of way lapsed upon the conversion to trail use. Compare State by Washington Wildlife Preservation, Inc. v. StateSearch
-
original interest, thus reversionary rights have not matured), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209 (1983), with Lawson v. StateSearch
-
McKinley v. WaterlooSearch
-
Schnabel v. CountySearch
-
whether petitioners possess the predicate property interest that must underlie any takings claim. See Ruckelshaus v. MonsantoSearch
-
Chicago & North Western Transp. Co. v. KaloSearch
-
Hayfield Northern R. Co. v. ChicagoSearch
-
interfere with the Commission's administration of the Interstate Commerce Act. See Trustees of the Diocese of Vermont v. StateSearch
-
s exercise of power over matters within its jurisdiction effected a taking of petitioners' property. Cf. Kaiser Aetna v. UnitedSearch
-
those actions do not displace state law as the traditional source of the real property interests. See Ruckelshaus v. MonsantoSearch
-
interest rather than suspends or defers the vesting of those property rights. See National Wildlife Federation v. ICCSearch
-
by state property law, a result incompatible with the Fifth Amendment. See Ruckelshaus Page 494 U. S. 23 v. MonsantoSearch
-
quoting Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. BeckwithSearch
-
of those property interests when it exercises that power. See First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. CountySearch
-
impose upon state-defined real property interests amounts to a compensable taking. We recently concluded in Nollan v. CaliforniaSearch
-
of other, lesser servitudes may also impose a burden requiring payment of just compensation. See United States v. CausbySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial