Legal Opinion · Dissent

Southeast Cass Water Resource District v. Burlington Northern Railroad

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided February 8, 1995No. Civ. 940106Published

1DissentSandstrom, Justice

Because I believe modern constitutional jurisprudence requires the trial court to determine whether the statutory allocation of 100 percent of the cost to BN Railroad was fair and reasonable under all of the circumstances, I respectfully dissent.

I agree with the majority that N.D.C.C. § 61-16.1-42 places solely upon the railroad company the responsibility for payment of the costs of building and maintaining bridges and culverts where a drain intersects a railroad. This was the prevailing attitude at the time its predecessor statute was enacted in the late 1800s. One author has noted in the…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  3. Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  5. Dolan v. City of TigardSupreme Court of the United States · 1994

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API