|
Preseault v. United States (U.S. Ct. of Appeals, Federal Circuit 1996) was a notable US court case involving Rail to Trails programs in the state of Vermont. The case involved the scope of the government’s ownership in public interests it had abandoned years prior to its decision to reuse the property for another task without considering the land-owners rights.〔(【引用サイトリンク】 work =Law School Case Briefs )〕〔(【引用サイトリンク】 work =4Law School )〕 ==Background== (詳細はrailroad lines into public trails for recreational use. Since the rise of railroad efficiency and its conglomeration, many lines had become defunct and uneconomical. In an effort to promote conservation, the government enacted a policy that would turn these lines into recreational trails for hiking, biking, or possibly other activities.〔〔(【引用サイトリンク】 work =Justia: US Supreme Court Center )〕〔〔(【引用サイトリンク】 work =Bloomberg Law ) 〕 Preseault owned the land that a defunct Vermont rail line formerly operated. The railroad had an easement on Preseault’s land to operate the line. In 1970 the rail line became completely unoperated and was left defunct until 1975 when the rail track was dismantled leaving the path only. However the railroad never officially filed an abandonment order.〔〔〔〔 The railroad company had bought the land under a fee simple contract, meaning they legally owned the land. However it was an incorrect filing and for all intents and purposes the agreement was treated as an easement and recognized as such by all parties. Preseault bought the land aware that there was an easement on the land, but believed said easement had been abandoned since the track was dismantled and removed.〔〔〔 〔 When the Rails to trails program was initiated, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) gained ownership of the line and began refitting the line as a recreational trail without the permission of Preseault. The ICC, along with the state, believed they still had rights of use under their easement agreement and that using the trail for a new recreational program was not in violation of the easement’s protocol. A trail was built and hikers and bicyclists began transgressing on Preseault’s property. Preseault filed a complaint with the ICC stating that his permission was never attained and that he was never compensated. The ICC refused, stating that the easement of the past railroad line had carried over to its ownership.〔 〔〔〔 Preseault therefore brought the case to the US Supreme Court in 1986, stating the Rails to Trails program was unconstitutional and was ruled against. Preseault eventually sued the federal government and brought his case to the Appellate Court for further review that was finally decided in 1996.〔〔 〔〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Preseault v. United States」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|