green
Positive treatment
Trending · 57 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 1×
37.2 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2008 ·
…he property rights of these are governed by the law in effect at the time they acquired their land.
at p. 1315
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 48 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Miller v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
But cf. Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1322 (Fed.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Our Lady of the Rockies, Inc. v. Peterson
(6×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
he property rights of these are governed by the law in effect at the time they acquired their land.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ats Ford Drive Investment, LLC v. United States
Separately, even if Indiana law has changed such that the Releases would convey an easement today, we must apply “the law in effect at the time the various arrangements were en- tered into.” Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1323 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Memmer v. United States
See id.; Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1315 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Schneider v. United States
The Rails-to-Trails Act, 16 U.S.C. §1247 (d), “provides for the preservation of discontinued railway rights-of-way, by ‘banking’ the rights-of-way for possible future reactivation” and “authorizes interim use of the rights-of-way as recreational trails.” Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1311 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Castillo v. United States
Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1312 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Castillo v. United States
Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1312 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pursche v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough
A patent conveys ownership in fee simple "unless a property interest was expressly reserved by the government." Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1316 (Fed.Cir.2005), see also 73B C.J.S.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rogers v. United States
Barclay, 443 F.3d at 1372-73 ; Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1312 (Fed.Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Scher v. Burke
(See Hash v. U.S. (2005) 403 F.3d 1308, 1314 [no patent mentions reserving to U.S. any title, ownership interest, or reversionary right in land underlying previously-granted railroad right-of-way].) Plaintiffs argue that defendants had the burden to show an intent of Congress not to reserve a right of way.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brandt v. United States
(2×)
Johnson 1988 Tr. v. Bayfield County, 649 F.3d 799, 803-04 (7th Cir. 2011); Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Wyoming And Colorado Railroad
(2×)
Johnson 1988 Tr. v. Bayfield County, 649 F.3d 799, 803-04 (7th Cir. 2011); Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed.Cir.2005); Beres v. United States, 64 Fed.Cl. 403, 427-28 (2005).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Beres v. United States
It obtains only the right to use the land for the purposes of which it is granted and for no other purpose....’” Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1314 (Fed.Cir.), reh’g denied (Fed.Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Samuel C. Johnson 1988 Trust v. Bayfield County
But Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1316-17 (Fed.Cir.2005), and Beres v. United States, 64 Fed.Cl. 403, 425-28 (Fed.Ct.Cl.2005), are to the contrary, and, though criticized in Darwin P. Roberts, “The Legal History of Federally Granted Railroad Rights-of-Way and the Myth of Congress’s 1871 Shift,’ ” 82 U. Colo. L.Rev. 85, 150-64 (2011), make better sense than Marshall , as well as being supported by the characterization in Great Northern Ry. v. United States, 315 U.S. 262, 271-79 , 62 S.Ct. 529 , 86 L.Ed. 836 (1942), of the rights of way created under the 1875 Act as “easements.…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Capreal, Inc. v. United States
Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1315 (Fed.Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Swaby v. Northern Hills Regional Railroad Authority
Ellamae Phillips Co. v. United States, 77 Fed.Cl. 387, 394 (2007), vacated on other grounds, 564 F.3d 1367 (Fed.Cir.2009); see also Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 494 U.S. 1, 13 , 110 S.Ct. 914, 922 , 108 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990) (abandonment by converting right of way to a recreational trail); Hash v. United States (Hash II), 403 F.3d 1308, 1318 (Fed.Cir.2005). [¶ 13.] Acknowledging that a right of way acquired by a congressional act can be abandoned, we must now determine what constitutes legal abandonment.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Swaby v. NORTHERN HILLS REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTH.
Ellamae Phillips Co. v. United States, 77 Fed.Cl. 387, 394 (2007), vacated on other grounds, 564 F.3d 1367 (Fed.Cir. 2009); see also Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 494 U.S. 1, 13 , 110 S.Ct. 914, 922 , 108 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990) (abandonment by converting right of way to a recreational trail); Hash v. United States ( Hash II ), 403 F.3d 1308, 1318 (Fed.Cir. 2005). [¶ 13.] Acknowledging that a right of way acquired by a congressional act can be abandoned, we must now determine what constitutes legal abandonment.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ellamae Phillips Co. v. United States
As we stated in Hash II, “[o]n the railway’s abandonment of its right-of-way these owners were disencumbered of the railway easement, and upon conversion of this land to a public trail, these owners’ property interests were taken for public use, in accordance with the principles set forth in the Preseault cases.” 403 F.3d at 1318 (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Blendu v. United States
(2×)
Hash v. United States (Hash II), 403 F.3d 1308, 1311 (Fed.Cir.2005).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. Northern Hills Regional Railroad Authority
(5×)
Id. at 428. [¶ 15.] Similarly, in Hash, the United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, examined whether the railway’s abandonment and subsequent conversion of a ROW to a public trail constituted a compensable taking. 403 F.3d at 1318.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Blendu v. United States
(5×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Hash v. United States (Hash II), 403 F.3d 1308, 1312 (Fed.Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Illig v. United States
Plaintiffs point for support to Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308 (Fed.Cir.2005), where the Federal Circuit recently stated: “In Preseault v. ICC, the Court held that if abandonment of railway use and application of the Trails Act effects a taking when the easement would otherwise revert to the owner of the servient estate, the landowner may sue for compensation under the Tucker Act.” Hash, 403 F.3d at 1312 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). 5 Plaintiffs allege that in Caldwell, the landowner’s right to full use of the fee arose before the ICC issued the NITU.
cited
Cited "see"
Pressly v. United States
See Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1312, 1315 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Ats Ford Drive Investment, LLC
See Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1315 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Juhnke v. City of West Richland
(2×)
See Hash v. United 8 States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1314 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Ats Ford Drive Investment, LLC
See Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1315 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Ats Ford Drive Investment, LLC
See Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1315 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ladd v. United States
(2×)
See Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1313-18 (Fed.Cir.2005) (holding that the patent holder, not the United States, held the reversionary interest 9 in land obtained by a railroad under the 1875 Act).
discussed
Cited "see"
Thompson v. United States
See Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1315 (Fed.Cir.2005) (“[T]he property rights of these early landowners are governed by the law in effect at the time they acquired their land.”); see also Preseault II, 100 F.3d at 1540 n. 13 (rejecting the argument that state statutes enacted after a railroad easement was granted changed property rights that “were fixed at the time of their ereation[.]”). 22 Finally, the court rejects the Government’s argument that the possibility of reactivation at some hypothetical time in the future signifies that the Line is still being used for a railroa…
discussed
Cited "see"
Klamath Irrigation District v. United States
(2×)
See Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1315 (Fed.Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Biery v. United States
See Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308 (Fed.Cir.2005); Toews v. United States, 376 F.3d 1371 (Fed.Cir.2004); Chevy Chase Land Co. v. United States, 158 F.3d 574 (Fed.Cir.1998) (certifying state law questions to the Maryland Court of Appeals); Chevy Chase Land Co. v. United States, 355 Md. 110 , 733 A.2d 1055, 1076-77 (1999) (answering certified state law questions); Chevy Chase Land Co. v. United States, 230 F.3d 1375 (Table), 1999 WL 1289099 (Fed.Cir.2000) (decision following the state court’s answer to certified questions); Preseault II, 100 F.3d at 1525 . .
cited
Cited "see"
Hash v. United States
See Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308 (Fed.Cir.2005) (Docket No. 116).
discussed
Cited "see"
John Barclay, Constance Barclay, Royer Barclay, Althea Barclay, John Amos, Marcia J. Bacon, Ronald J. Bartel, Melvin Bergen, John E. Boyle, Jonathan Ehrlich, Florence Ehrlich, Donald Graumann, Ruben Kliewer, Alvin Kroupa, Barbara Kroupa, Burdett Ledell, Lee Dale Miller, Vernon Minns, Frank A. Mitchell, Mid Kansas Cooperative Association, John F. Opat, Robert Presnell, Janet Regier, Sonja Regier, Don Reinhardt, Janice Reinhardt, Mary J. Rodgers, Darrell Thompson, Robert Turner, Geneva Turnquist, Donald Turnquist, Clark E. Wiebe, and Marlene J. Weber v. United States, Renewal Body Works, Inc. v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1318 (Fed.Cir.2005) ("On the railway's abandonment of its right-of-way these owners were disencumbered of the railway easement, and upon conversion of this land to a public trail, these owners' property interests were taken for public use, in accordance with the principles set forth in the Preseault cases.") 42 The panel majority errs in holding that the railroad's "willingness to negotiate a trail use agreement," maj. op. at 1377, is an actionable Fifth Amendment taking.
examined
Cited "see"
Barclay v. United States
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1318 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Stephen J. Rogers v. United States
The present case arises from the claims of a group of owners of land abutting the railroad corridor who claim that conveyances to the railroad by their predecessors in title granted only easements for a railroad right-of-way and did not convey fee simple title; that the abandonment of the railroad right-of-way gave them the right to claim the land free of the easements; and that the conversion of the land to a public recreational trail constitutes a taking for which they are entitled to' compensation. “[A] Fifth Amendment taking occurs when, pursuant to the Trails Act, state law reversionary…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Geneva Rock Products, Inc. v. United States
See Railway Co. v. Ailing, 99 U.S. 463, 480 , 25 L.Ed. 438 (1878) (“Denver & Rio Grande Ry.”) (“At the time of the passage of [the 1875 Act] Congress had become convinced of the importance to the country, and particularly to the Western States, of preserving cafions, passes, and defiles in the public domain for the equal and common use of all railroad companies organized under competent State or territorial authority, and to which might be granted by national authority the right of way.”); Great N. Ry. v. United States, 315 U.S. 262, 272 , 62 5.Ct. 529, 86 L.Ed. 836 (1942) (“The [187…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Dana R. Hodges Trust v. United States
Preseault II, 100 F.3d at 1552 ; see also Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308, 1315 (Fed.Cir.2005).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hash
v.
United States
v.
United States
2003-1395.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Aug 16, 2006.
403 F.3d 1308
Cited by 28 opinions | Published
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
August 16, 2006
ERRATA
Appeal No. 03-1395
Hash v. United States Decided: April 4, 2005. Precedential
The following changes are made:
Page 9, line 16, of the slip opinion, replace "'2842(a)" with -- '243.2 --.
Page 9, line 24, of the slip opinion, replace "'2842(a)" with -- '243.2 --.