Legal Opinion · Dissent
City of Girard v. Youngstown Belt Railway Co.
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided September 16, 2011No. 2010-T-0079Published
1DissentDiane V. Grendell, Judge
{¶ 57} I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Girard is impliedly preempted by the ICCTA from seeking relief in the trial court and that this matter is committed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the STB. This matter was not federally preempted and therefore the trial court properly had jurisdiction.
{¶ 58} State and local regulation of railroads is permissible when it does not interfere with interstate rail operations. Dist. of Columbia v. 109, 205.5 Square Feet of Land (Apr. 25, 2005), D.D.C. No. 05-202, 2005 WL 975745; Florida E. Coast Ry. Co. v. W. Palm Beach (C.A.11,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Franks Investment Co. LLC v. Union Pacific RailroadCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2010
- Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. City of MarshfieldDistrict Court, W.D. Wisconsin · 2000
- New York & Atlantic Railway Co. v. Surface Transportation BoardCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2011
- City of Sachse, Texas v. Kansas City SouthernDistrict Court, E.D. Texas · 2008
- J.P. Rail, Inc. v. New Jersey Pinelands CommissionDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2005
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.