Seattle, Lake Shore & E. R.R., Inc. & Lake Union Terminal R.R. Co. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n & United States of Am., Burlington N. R.R. Co., City of Seattle, & Rails to Trails Conservancy, Intervening, 55 F.3d 684 (D.C. Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Seattle, Lake Shore & E. R.R., Inc. & Lake Union Terminal R.R. Co. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n & United States of Am., Burlington N. R.R. Co., City of Seattle, & Rails to Trails Conservancy, Intervening, 55 F.3d 684 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Belton (dcd, 2019-02-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" United States v. Belton
D.D.C. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Blake, 55 F.3d 684 (D.C.
discussed Cited "see" New Dynamics Foundation v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Airlie Found. v. United States, 826 F.Supp. 537, 546 (D.D.C.1993), aff'd, 55 F.3d 684 (D.C.Cir.1995). 22 With these preliminary matters resolved, the court now turns to the core question whether plaintiff is, in fact, entitled to a declaration.
discussed Cited "see" Kraft General Foods, Inc. v. Cattell
S.D.N.Y. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Airlie Foundation, Inc. v. United States, 826 F.Supp. 537, 546 (D.D.C.1993) (“[c]ertified transcripts of prior testimony may be used [on] a motion for summary judgment .... [even if] not attached to [a party] Affidavit”), aff 'd on other grounds, 55 F.3d 684 , 1995 WL 310025 (D.C.Cir.1995) (per curiam); Clifton v. Schafer, No. 90 Civ. 0462, 1991 WL 353439 , at *2 (W.D.Wis.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Morris Road Partners, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board
3rd Cir. · 2016 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Three Sisters Sportswear Co., 312 N.L.R.B. 853 , 863 (1993) (“[the] centralized control of labor relations ... factor becomes less important where some of the companies have no employees”) (citations omitted), enforced, 55 F.3d 684 (D.C.Cir. 1995); see also Bolivar-Tees, Inc., 349 N.L.R.B. 720 , 722 (2007) (“Our finding of single-employer status is not undercut by the lack of specific evidence indicating centralized control of labor relations.”), enforced, 551 F.3d 722 (8th Cir.2008).
cited Cited "see, e.g." St. Matthew Publishing, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Airlie Found., Inc. v. United States, 826 F.Supp. 537, 548 (D.D.C.1993), aff'd., 55 F.3d 684 (D.C.Cir.1995) (IRS declaration of non-exemption deemed correct).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Seattle, Lake Shore and Eastern Railroad, Inc. And Lake Union Terminal Railroad Company
v.
Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Burlington Northern Railroad Company, City of Seattle, and Rails to Trails Conservancy, Intervening
94-1341.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
May 10, 1995.
55 F.3d 684
Unpublished

55 F.3d 684

312 U.S.App.D.C. 119

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
SEATTLE, LAKE SHORE AND EASTERN RAILROAD, INC. and Lake
Union Terminal Railroad Company, Petitioners,
v.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION and United States of America,
Respondents,
Burlington Northern Railroad Company, City of Seattle, and
Rails to Trails Conservancy, Intervening Respondents.

Nos. 94-1341, 94-1456.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

May 10, 1995.

Before: WILLIAM, GINSBURG, and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

1

These petitions for review were considered on the record from the Interstate Commerce Commission and on the briefs and arguments of counsel. The court is satisfied that appropriate disposition of these cases does not call for further opinion. See D.C. Cir. Rule 36(b).

2

The Interstate Commerce Commission reasonably concluded, based upon the written Rails to Trails Conservancy offer of $175,000 for both parts of the line at issue in this case, that the petitioners' offers of $10 for each of the two parts were unlikely to equal the acquisition cost of the line. See 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10905(d)(2)(b). The Commission's findings of fact being supported by substantial evidence and its conclusions therefrom being reasonable and in accordance with law, it is

3

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petitions for review be DENIED substantially for the reasons set out in the Commission's Decision, Burlington Northern Railroad Company--Abandonment Exemption--in King County, WA, Docket No. AB-6 (Sub-No. 357X) (April 21, 1994).

4

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C. Cir. Rule 41(a)(2). This instruction to the Clerk is without prejudice to the right of any party at any time to move for expedited issuance of the mandate for good cause shown.