Chlorine Institute, Inc. v. Soo Line R.R., No. 14-2346 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseIn 2009, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration of the Department of Transportation (tasked with regulating the transportation of hazardous materials) finalized extensive amendments to the regulations for the transportation of toxic inhalation hazard (TIH) materials, 7 49 C.F.R. 171-174 & 179). The regulations included substantial background information regarding the safety issues concerning the transportation of hazardous materials and prior train derailments leading to tragic harms. Chemical and fertilizer entities sought to enjoin the railway (CP) from imposing a requirement that any TIH materials transported on CP's railways be transported in normalized steel rail cars. Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the district court held the Surface Transportation Board should address whether CP's requirement is reasonable in the first instance, denied the request for injunctive relief, and dismissed without prejudice. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding no likelihood of irreparable harm. The court rejected an argument that CP's requirement would amount to a national crisis for an adequate water supply or fertilizer for crops. Any minimum reduction in the ability to transport TIH materials by rail does not outweigh the real concerns which prompted CP to implement the requirement.
Court Description: Bye, Author, with Beam and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Railroads. In an action seeking to enjoin the railroad from imposing a requirement that any toxic inhalation hazard materials to be transported on Canadian Pacific railways be transported in normalized steel rail cars, the district court correctly determined that under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction the Surface Transportation Board should address whether the requirement is reasonable, and the court did not err in denying the request for injunctive relief and dismissing the suit without prejudice.
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.