43 U.S.C. § 913
Conveyance by land grant railroads of portions of rights of way to State, county, or municipality
All railroad companies to which grants for rights of way through the public lands have been made by Congress, or their successors in interest or assigns, are authorized to convey to any State, county, or municipality any portion of such right of way to be used as a public highway or street: Provided, That no such conveyance shall have the effect to diminish the right of way of such railroad company to a less width than 50 feet on each side of the center of the main track of the railroad as now established and maintained.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1966–2012 · leading case: Douglas A. Mauler and Judith A. Mauler v. Bayfield County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Wisconsin
Douglas A. Mauler and Judith A. Mauler v. Bayfield County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Wisconsin (2002)
“3 In conjunction with § 912, 43 U.S.C. § 913 permits railroad companies to convey their public land grants to states, counties, or municipalities for use as public highways or streets.”
Beres v. United States (2012)
“” Furthermore, defendant alleges that, regarding the 1920 Act “King County is using the right-of-way as part of its transportation system — a public highway.”
Ellamae Phillips Co. v. United States (2009)
“In 1920, Congress enacted an additional statute, codified at 43 U.S.C. § 913 , declaring that federally granted rights-of-way could be used for non-railroad transportation purposes: § 913.”
SAMUEL C. JOHNSON 1988 v. Bayfield County, Wis. (2008)
“621 (enacted in 1920, codified at 43 U.S.C. § 913 ). In an effort to preserve these abandoned railway lines for use as trails, Congress amended § 912 in 1988.”
Mauler v. Bayfield County (2001)
“Closely related to § 912, 43 U.S.C. § 913 authorizes railroads to convey their land grant rights-of-way for use as public highways or streets.”
Hinojos v. Lohmann (2008)
“§ 912 (1922); 43 U.S.C. § 913 (1920). Throughout this case, the parties have assumed that one such statute, 48 U.”
State of Idaho v. Oregon Short Line R. Co. (1985)
“Title 43, section 912, passed in 1922, purports to dispose of railroad rights-of-way where there has been abandonment or forfeiture; 43 U.S.C. § 913 , passed in 1920, purports to allow railroads to convey portions of their rights-of-way though not so as to diminish the…”
Avista Corp. Inc. v. Wolfe (2008)
“See 43 U.S.C. § 913 (requiring the railroad to retain at least 100 feet of the right of way); 23 U.”
Barney v. Burlington Northern Railroad (1992)
“43 U.S.C. § 913 (1920), 43 U.S.C. § 912 (1922), 23 U.”
Home on the Range v. AT & T Corp. (2005)
“The Seventh Circuit also based its decision on an alternative holding: "[E]ven if we did not find that the United States retained a right of reverter under the original grant, the Railroad’s interest in the land is now properly vested in Bayfield County” pursuant to 43 U.S.C. §…”
Hash v. United States (2005)
“A 1920 statute, 43 U.S.C. § 913 , provided: “All. railroad companies to which grants for rights of way through the public lands have been made by Congress, or their successors in interest or assigns, are authorized to convey to any State, county, or municipality any portion of…”
People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Giumarra Vineyards Corp. (1966)
“( 43 U.S.C.A. § 913 .) The county accepted the road; it became a public highway; defendant’s rights as an abutting owner attached.”
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.