City of Ozark, AR v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., No. 16-1186 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThe City filed suit against Union Pacific in state court, seeking an order requiring Union Pacific to restore a public at-grade rail crossing or, alternatively, allowing the City to condemn Union Pacific’s land across that public crossing. The district court granted the City summary judgment and a permanent injunction, rejecting Union Pacific’s contention that the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA), 49 U.S.C. 10501(b), grants the Surface Transportation Board (STB) exclusive jurisdiction over the City’s claims. The court concluded that ICCTA’s express preemption provision applies to this dispute; Union Pacific has made a strong showing that the remedy the City seeks would “impede rail operations or pose undue safety risks,” the STB’s governing preemption standard; and therefore the court remanded with instructions for the district court to rule on Union Pacific’s motion to dismiss the City’s amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction unless the City obtains a ruling from the STB that it lacks or declines exclusive jurisdiction over this dispute.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Gruender and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act. The Act's express preemeption provision, 49 U.S.C. Section 10501(b), applies to this dispute; further, the Railroad made a strong showing that the remedy the City sought - restoration of a public at-grade crossing or, alternatively, permission to condemn the land at the crossing - would "impede rail operations or pose undue safety risks," which are the Surface Transportation Board's governing preemption standards; as result, the matter must be remanded to the district court with instructions to rule on the Railroad's motion to dismiss the City's amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction unless the City obtains a ruling from the Surface Transportation Board that it lacks or declines exclusive jurisdiction over this dispute.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.