49 U.S.C. § 10906
Exception
Notwithstanding section 10901 and subchapter II of chapter 113 of this title, and without the approval of the Board, a rail carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part may enter into arrangements for the joint ownership or joint use of spur, industrial, team, switching, or side tracks. The Board does not have authority under this chapter over construction, acquisition, operation, abandonment, or discontinuance of spur, industrial, team, switching, or side tracks.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2023 · leading case: Lawson v. State, 730 P.2d 1308 (Wash. 1986).
Lawson v. State, 730 P.2d 1308 (Wash. 1986). “8-mile long right of way, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 10906 and 49 C.F.R. § 1152.28 .”
Preseault v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, 494 U.S. 1 (1990). “144, as amended, 49 U. S. C. §10906 (1982 ed.), several provisions aimed at promoting the conversion of abandoned 3 lines *6 to trails.”
New York & Atl. Ry. v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 32 A.D.3d 943 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006). “While the MTA has argued that this matter is outside the jurisdiction of the STB because it involves the “abandonment” of a spur track which is excepted from the STB’s authority under 49 USC § 10906 , this contention is factually and legally unavailing.”
Preseault v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl. 69 (Fed. Cl. 1992). “§ 10906 , in the event that the ICC grants a petition for abandonment or discontinuance, it must make the further determination if rail properties are suitable for use for [other] public purposes, including highways, other forms of mass transportation, conservation, energy…”
Port City Props. v. Union Pac. R.R., 518 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 2008). “In 49 U.S.C. § 10906 , however, Congress provided that entities may construct, transfer or operate spur or industrial tracks without STB approval.”
Janet Fritsch v. Interstate Com. Comm'n & United States of Am., Monroe Cnty., a Legal Subdivision of the State of Indiana, Intervenors, 59 F.3d 248 (D.C. Cir. 1995). “Petitioners challenge a decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission (“ICC” or “Commission”) holding that CSX was legally unable to fully abandon its rail line until expiration of a 180-day public use condition attached to the Commission’s decision authorizing abandonment,…”
Chevy Chase Land Co. v. United States, 733 A.2d 1055 (Md. 1999). “Under 49 U.S.C. § 10906 , the Commission must make a determination of "whether the rail properties that are involved in the proposed abandonment or discontinuance are suitable for use for public purposes, including highways, other forms of mass transportation, conservation,…”
Friberg v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 267 F.3d 439 (5th Cir. 2001). “49 U.S.C. § 10906 . 14 . See, e.g., City of Auburn v.”
Glosemeyer v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., 685 F. Supp. 1108 (E.D. Mo. 1988). “" 49 U.S.C. § 10906 . If the ICC finds that the line is suitable for use for public purposes, it "may be sold, leased, exchanged or otherwise disposed of" only upon the conditions imposed by the ICC.”
United Transp. Union- Illinois Legislative Bd. v. Surface Transp. Bd. & United States of Am., 183 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 1999). “49 U.S.C. § 10906 (providing an exception to Board authority under § 10901).”
Chevy Chase Land Co. of Montgomery Cnty. v. United States, 37 Fed. Cl. 545 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “49 U.S.C. § 10906 . In 1983, Congress enacted the Rails-to-Trails Act, which added section 8(d) to the National Trails System Act.”
Hayfield N. R.R. v. Chicago & North W. Transp. Co., 467 U.S. 622 (1984). “, 49 U. S. C. §10906 : “If the Commission finds that the rail properties proposed to be abandoned are suitable for public purposes, the properties may be sold, leased, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of only under conditions provided in the order of the Commission.”
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.