Trevarton v. South Dakota, No. 15-1766 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseBN applied for an exemption permitting expeditious abandonment of a railroad line. The STB granted but then revoked an exemption prior to completion of the abandonment and instead authorized BN to enter into an “interim trail use/rail banking agreement” in accordance with the National Trails System Act (Trails Act), 16 U.S.C. 1247(d), as implemented by the STB in 49 C.F.R. 1152.29. In 2014, plaintiffs, ranchers who own properties underlying and surrounding the railway right-of-way easement, filed two separate actions against the State and the Department, seeking a declaration quieting title to the right-of-way because the easement terminated by operation of law when BN ceased railroad operations. The district court consolidated the two cases and concluded that plaintiffs' claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the STB, and granted Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that plaintiffs' claims are not within the STB’s exclusive jurisdiction, but that the Amended Complaints - alleging that defendants “stand in the shoes” of the BN, and therefore defendants cannot impose non-railroad restrictions on plaintiffs’ rights as servient landowners,- failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the court modified part of the district court judgment and otherwise affirmed.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Murphy and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Railroads. After the Surface Transportation Board determined that the railroad easement in question was not abandoned, the easement was conveyed to defendants pursuant to the an interim trail use agreement; the issue plaintiffs raise, whether defendants in managing the trail violated plaintiffs' property rights as servient landowners was not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the STB, and the court erred in dismissing the claim on the ground it was; however, the plaintiffs' alternate claim for a declaratory judgment defining the parties' rights to use the easement is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
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.