Mark Griffioen, Joyce Ludvicek, Mike Ludvicek, Sandra Skelton, and Brian Vanous, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railway Company, Alliant Energy Corporation, Union Pacific Railroad Company, and Union Pacific Corporation.
Supreme Court of Iowa
1Dissent
APPEL, Justice (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
The main question here is what Congress meant when it declared in the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA) that "the remedies provided under this part with respect to regulation of rail transportation are exclusive and preempt the remedies provided under Federal or State Law." 49 U.S.C. § 10501(b)(2) (2006). The ICCTA abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission with all its regulatory authority over rates, certificates of convenience, and gateways, and replaced the intense and detailed regulatory regime with a market-based…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- CSX Transportation, Inc. v. EasterwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Altria Group, Inc. v. GoodSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Elam v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2011
- Franks Investment Co. LLC v. Union Pacific RailroadCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2010
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.