49 C.F.R. § 213.33
Drainage
Each drainage or other water carrying facility under or immediately adjacent to the roadbed shall be maintained and kept free of obstruction, to accommodate expected water flow for the area concerned.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: MD Mall Assocs., LLC v. CSX Transp., Inc., 715 F.3d 479 (3rd Cir. 2013).
MD Mall Assocs., LLC v. CSX Transp., Inc., 715 F.3d 479 (3rd Cir. 2013). “” 49 C.F.R. 213.33. MD Mall argued that § 213.”
Miller v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 65 A.3d 1006 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013). “49 C.F.R. § 213.33 . Miller argues that Section 213.”
Gallo v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 372 F. Supp. 3d 470 (W.D. Tex. 2019). “Union Pacific also argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs' negligence claim based on the Track Safety Standards, 49 C.F.R. §§ 213.33 and 213.39, because it did not violate a duty under those regulations and because Plaintiffs cannot establish that any…”
Tubbs v. BNSF Ry. Co., 562 S.W.3d 323 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). “But, to the extent the Tubbses' claims were based on alleged violations of the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) regulations (specifically *329 49 C.F.R. §§ 213.33 and 213.103(c) ), 5 they were not preempted because "the FRSA regulations…”
MD Mall Assocs., LLC v. CSX Transp., Inc., 288 F. Supp. 3d 565 (E.D. Pa. 2017). “At issue in that appeal was whether a drainage regulation prescribed by the Secretary, codified at 49 C.F.R. § 213.33 , 26 "covered" the subject matter of the Mall's claims.”
Rooney v. City of Philadelphia, 623 F. Supp. 2d 644 (E.D. Pa. 2009). “49 C.F.R. § 213.33 . “ ‘Roadbed’ is not defined in the regulations but the term commonly refers to the area under and adjacent to the tracks.”
Murphy v. Town of Darien, 210 A.3d 56 (Conn. 2019). “; see also 49 C.F.R. § 213.33 (2010). The Third Circuit explained that it could not "read the silence of [ 49 C.”
Miller v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 103 A.3d 1225 (Pa. 2014). “” 49 C.F.R. § 213.33 . In the majority’s view, the regulation required SEPTA to “accommodate expected water flow for the area concerned” lying “under .”
Cent. of Georgia R.R. v. Mock, 499 S.E.2d 673 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). “” 49 CFR § 213.33 . Central contends Mock failed to prove the ditch would not accommodate expected water flow, that the ditch was immediately adjacent to the roadbed, or that the ditch was the cause of the mud on which he slipped.”
S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. United States, 13 Cl. Ct. 402 (Ct. Cl. 1987). “See 49 C.F.R. § 213.33 (1985). All of the terrain around the track sloped toward the *404 Russian River, which was located about a mile east of the track.”
Gordon v. New England Cent. R.R., Inc. (D. Vt. 2019). “Seguin, Assistant Chief Counsel for Safety at the Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”), to attorneys at the law firm of Steptoe & Johnson LLP providing the FRA’s opinion on the proper interpretation of 49 C.”
David Chambers v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “-2- In due course, Illinois Central filed a motion for summary judgment on two grounds: first, that plaintiffs’ negligence claim was preempted by Illinois Central’s compliance with 49 C.F.R. § 213.33 which mandates that “Each drainage or other water carrying facility under or…”
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.