Any railroad company desiring to secure the benefits of sections 934 to 939 of this title, shall, within twelve months after the location of any section of twenty miles of its road, if the same be upon surveyed lands, and, if upon unsurveyed lands, within twelve months after the survey thereof by the United States, file with the officer, as the Secretary of the Interior may designate, of the land office for the district where such land is located a profile of its road; and upon approval thereof by the Secretary of the Interior the same shall be noted upon the plats in said office; and thereafter all such lands over which such right of way shall pass shall be disposed of subject to such right of way: Provided, That if any section of said road shall not be completed within five years after the location of said section, the rights herein granted shall be forfeited as to any such uncompleted section of said road.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1940–2024 · leading case:
Beres v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 408 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
Beres v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 408 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
· cites it 2× “See 1875 Act, § 4 (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 937 (repealed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Pub.”
Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
· cites it 2× “43 U.S.C. § 937 . Concurrently with encouraging the construction of railroads, the nation also encouraged settlement of the western lands through the Homestead Act of 1862, 12 Stat.”
Beres v. States, 64 Fed. Cl. 403 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
“See General Railroad Right of Way Act of 1875, § 4 (codified at 43 U.S.C. § 937 ). Pursuant to the 1875 Act, between 1887 and 1891, the Seattle Railroad Company took the necessary steps to establish a railroad right-of-way across public land along the eastern shore of Lake…”
Brown v. N. Hills Reg'l R.R. Auth., 2007 SD 49 (S.D. 2007).
“NHRAA argues that 43 U.S.C. § 937 supports its argument that the United States in *735 tended to retain an interest in the railroad ROWs.”
Home on the Range v. AT & T Corp., 386 F. Supp. 2d 999 (S.D. Ind. 2005).
“43 U.S.C. § 937 . By making the disposition of such lands “subject to” the right-of-way, the Act explicitly negated the theory that these lands were not included in the “disposition.”
Ellamae Phillips Co. v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 387 (Fed. Cl. 2007).
“43 U.S.C. § 937 . It was anticipated that the public lands underlying the rights-of-way would eventually be transferred to private parties.”
United States v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 230 F.2d 690 (10th Cir. 1956).
“§ 937 , required the location of each right of way to be noted on the land plats in the local land offices and “thereafter all such lands over which such right of way shall pass shall be disposed of subject to such right of way”. The court reasoned that the reserved right to…”
Boise Cascade Corp. v. Union Pac. R.R., 454 F. Supp. 531 (D. Utah 1978).
“As defendants correctly contend, the filing of the profile map pursuant to 43 U.S.C. § 937 and upon which plaintiff hinges its non-compliance argument is required and relevant only in connection with those situations in which the trackage is not already actually constructed at…”
United States v. Great N. Ry. Co., 32 F. Supp. 651 (D. Mont. 1940).
“After demonstrating that the railway company has no right to remove the minerals so situated, the trustee then contends that such minerals within the 200-foot strip passed from the plaintiff to the patentee by virtue of the patent upon which the trustee bases his claim, coupled…”
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.