Search for: "Railroad Company v. Grant" Results 61 - 80 of 337
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jun 2011, 2:04 pm by WIMS
The Appeals Court explains that appellants BNSF Railway Company and Union Pacific Railroad Company (the Railroads) formerly maintained railroad tracks on a parcel of land in Stockton, California, that was contaminated by petroleum. [read post]
5 Sep 2013, 6:00 am by Wystan M. Ackerman
  The court explained that this does not mean that the case has to be a “bet the company” one, or even close. [read post]
6 Oct 2015, 8:11 am by Ingrid Wuerth
Not so in this case, where all agree that running a railroad company and selling tickets are commercial activity. [read post]
30 Jul 2012, 1:18 pm by Alex Braden
The problem, argue the affected property owners, is that the railroads have no unilateral right to permit this kind of activity, which falls outside the "railroad purposes" scope of the rights-of-way granted to them. [read post]
18 Dec 2017, 7:45 am
  As stated in the conveyance, in consideration of the payment of $345.80, the original owners did "hereby ... grant and confirm to the [Railway Company], its successors and assigns for ever" an 8.67 acre portion of the owners' property. [read post]
This is a rails-to-trails takings case in which the panel concluded that the words in the original easement grant "for railroad purposes and for such other purposes as the Railroad Company ... may ... desire to make" mean that the easement was a "general" easement which allowed the grantee to not only make railroad use of the easement, but literally any use it desired. [read post]
15 May 2018, 7:14 am
The landowners claimed title (ownership) based upon: 1) an 1882 deed, that they claim served to revert the corridor land to them when the corridor stopped being used as a railroad; and 2) all three claimed adverse possession of those sections of the corridor.The granting clause (“[t]he words that transfer an interest in a deed,”) of the 1882 deed granted the property to the railroad company “and to its assigns forever. [read post]
5 May 2016, 7:45 am by Laura Donohue
The controversy over the Second Bank of the United States, ostensibly settled in McCullough v. [read post]