MD Mall Associates, LLC v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
1DissentRendell, Circuit Judge
I dissent from the majority’s opinion because I believe its analysis veers from Supreme Court precedent in the area of FRSA preemption. When the Mall commenced this action in District Court complaining of CSX’s failure to maintain its stormwater drainage, it urged that, applying the “coverage” test for preemption that the Supreme Court established in CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 113 S.Ct. 1732, 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (1993), its claims were clearly covered by 49 C.F.R. § 213.33. Section 213.33 provides:
Each drainage or other water carrying facility under or immediately…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- CSX Transportation, Inc. v. EasterwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Emerson v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2007
- Anderson v. Wisconsin Central Transportation Co.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2004
- Black v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadIndiana Court of Appeals · 1980
- Rooney v. City of PhiladelphiaDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2009
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.