23 U.S.C. § 316
Consent by United States to conveyance of property
For the purposes of this title the consent of the United States is given to any railroad or canal company to convey to the State transportation department of any State, or its nominee, any part of its right-of-way or other property in that State acquired by grant from the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1985–2008 · leading case: Barney v. Burlington Northern Railroad
Barney v. Burlington Northern Railroad (1992)
“§ 912 (1922), 23 U.S.C. § 316 (1921). 4 The Landowners contend that § 912 applies only to reversionary rights held by the United States and that the 1875 Act left no retained interest with the United States.”
State of Idaho v. Oregon Short Line R. Co. (1985)
“As a corollary to its argument, Blaine County also asserts that 23 U.S.C. § 316 must apply if § 912 does; in other words, either both provisions apply or neither does.”
Hinojos v. Lohmann (2008)
“See 23 U.S.C. § 316 (1921); 43 U.S.C. § 912 (1922); 43 U.”
Avista Corp. Inc. v. Wolfe (2008)
“§ 913 (requiring the railroad to retain at least 100 feet of the right of way); 23 U.S.C. § 316 (requiring that the conveyance be to a state highway department).”
State of Idaho v. Oregon Short Line R. Co. (1985)
“§§ 912 , 913 and/or 23 U.S.C. § 316 . The purpose of this decision is to determine whether an abandonment of the Ketchum Branch has occurred and to declare, in part, the rights and legal relations of the parties.”
Home on the Range v. AT & T Corp. (2005)
“§ 912 and 23 U.S.C. § 316 . The statutes, enacted in 1922 and 1921, respectively, assumed that the United States retained a reversionary interest in the right of way, which was consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Rio Grande Western Ry.”
Idaho v. Oregon Short Line Railroad (1985)
“§ 913 and 23 U.S.C. § 316 .” The Court has reviewed the memoranda submitted by the parties as well as all other matters on file in the case.”
Scott v. Union Pacific Railroad (1993)
“Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. § 316 , 2 Union Pacific directed the State, through *731 the Nevada Department of Transportation, to nominate the County as its authorized representative to receive R/W Nev-042771.”
King County v. Burlington Northern RR Corp. (1994)
“In addition to Section 912, dealing with instances in which there has been an abandonment or forfeiture of the property for railroad purposes, Congress also enacted 43 U.S.C. § 913 (1920), permitting railroads to convey portions of their right of ways, as long as the conveyance…”
Avista Corp. Inc. v. Sanders County (2008)
“WOLFE 16275 B [10] Given the conclusion that abandonment occurred in October 1958, the next question is whether a public highway was constructed within one year after that date, which would operate to extinguish any non-vested reversionary private property rights.”
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.