No. 22-480

City of Palestine, Texas, et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2022-11-21
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: circuit-conflict circuit-split contractual-obligations iccta-preemption interstate-commerce interstate-commerce-commission-termination-act judicial-review preemption retroactive-application summary-judgment
Key Terms:
Arbitration JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2023-01-06
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in retroactively applying the preemption provisions of the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA) to a railroad's voluntarily assumed contractual obligations to a city and county, in conflict with precedent from other circuits

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in retroactively applying the preemption provisions of the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA) toa railroad’s voluntarily assumed contractual obligations to a city and county, in conflict with precedent from other circuits. Specifically: Question 1: In upholding the District Court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, did the Fifth Circuit err in retroactively applying the preemption provisions of the ICCTA in conflict with Eighth and Ninth Circuit precedent? Question 2: Did the Fifth Circuit err in its analysis of Union Pacific’s voluntary decision to assume the obligations contained in the 1954 agreement, in conflict with Fourth Circuit precedent?

Docket Entries

2023-01-09
Petition DENIED.
2022-11-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/6/2023.
2022-11-21
Waiver of right of respondent Union Pacific Railroad Company to respond filed.
2022-11-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 21, 2022)

Attorneys

City of Palestine, Texas, et al.
James P. AllisonAllison, Bass & Magee, L.L.P., Petitioner
James P. AllisonAllison, Bass & Magee, L.L.P., Petitioner
Union Pacific Railroad Company
J. Scott BallengerLatham & Watkins, Respondent
J. Scott BallengerLatham & Watkins, Respondent