49 C.F.R. § 213.31
Scope
This subpart prescribes minimum requirements for roadbed and areas immediately adjacent to roadbed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1991–2018 · leading case: Rooney v. City of Philadelphia, 623 F. Supp. 2d 644 (E.D. Pa. 2009).
Rooney v. City of Philadelphia, 623 F. Supp. 2d 644 (E.D. Pa. 2009). “” 49 C.F.R. § 213.31 . This includes a drainage requirement.”
Miller v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 103 A.3d 1225 (Pa. 2014). “” 49 C.F.R. § 213.31 . More importantly, the regulation simply does not relate to bridges.”
Charles Harris v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 784 F.3d 954 (4th Cir. 2015). “49 C.F.R. §§ 213.31 , .51, .101, .201 (2009).”
Miller v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 65 A.3d 1006 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013). “In fact, there are no regulations for “bridges” or “bridge safety” under the FRSA, but only an advisory policy known as the Policy on the Safety of Railroad Bridges (Railroad Bridge Policy).”
Tubbs v. BNSF Ry. Co., 562 S.W.3d 323 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). “" 49 C.F.R. § 213.31 . Thus, § 213.33 establishes the standard of care for the roadbed and areas immediately adjacent thereto, and, if a railroad fails to meet that standard of care and other property is damaged as a result, the Clarification Amendment gives property owners a…”
Missouri Pac. R.R. v. R.R. Comm'n of Texas, 948 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1991). “49 C.F.R. §§ 213.31 , -.33, -.37. The ballast must “[t]ransmit and distribute the load of the track and railroad rolling equipment” to the roadbed; “[r]estrain the track laterally, longitudinally, and vertically under dynamic loads imposed by railroad rolling equipment and…”
Miller, N., & I26 Hotel Corp, Aplts. v. SEPTA (Pa. 2014). “” 49 C.F.R. § 213.31 (emphases added). Notably, the provision identified by the Commonwealth Court majority as dispositive here, Section 213.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.