Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Glosemeyer v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims
45 Fed.Cl. 771 (2000)


Facts

The Glosemeyers (plaintiffs) own parcels of land over which the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company (MKT) had an easement to operate its railroad line. Under Missouri law, once an easement is abandoned, the right to the property reverts back to the owner of the underlying land. However, where the easement concerns a railroad right-of-way, the Rails to Trails Act (Act) supersedes state laws governing abandonment. Under the Act, the railroad company must seek permission from the federal government to abandon the track. If the application is approved, a qualified trail provider may apply to use the abandoned right-of-way as a recreational trail, provided that the Government (defendant) is allowed to reopen rail service on the right-of-way if later deemed appropriate. The right-of-way is then placed in a national “rail bank,” in case it is later needed for rail service. This preservation of abandoned railroad easements for possible future railroad use is known as railbanking. In 1986, pursuant to the Act, MKT filed an application to abandon its rail service. The application was granted and MKT entered an agreement with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), under which MKT transferred its interest in the right-of-way to MDNR for $200,000 and removed the entire track. MDNR now operates a recreational trail over the former line. The Glosemeyers brought suit, arguing that, but for the Act, ownership of the easement area would have reverted back to them upon abandonment by MKT. The Glosemeyers claimed that operation of the Act constituted a taking of a new easement on their property. Both parties moved for summary judgment as to liability.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Bruggink, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 202,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.