July 6, 2022 - Railway Age, David Peter Alan -

In the previous article in this series, I looked at the surprising decision by the Supreme Court of Texas in the case of Miles v. Texas Central Railroad & Infrastructure, Inc. and Integrated Texas Logistics, Inc., Case No. 20-0393 (“Texas Central”), decided on Friday, June 24. 

The Court held that Texas Central has the authority to take land under eminent domain to build its railroad, because it is an “electric interurban railway company” under the applicable provision of the Texas Transportation Code. The Court stopped short of actually calling Texas Central a “railroad company” and, thereby, seemed to reach a holding that does not appear to comport with the general understanding of what a “railroad” is.

I examined the majority opinion in detail in Part 6, our recent news story about the decision. I also looked at the concurring and dissenting opinions that went with it. Our last report was comparable to the “analysis” section of a scholarly case comment in a law review, and this commentary is comparable to the “evaluation” section of such an article. I will evaluate the case by looking at the holding that the Court rendered and what the judges could have said but did not, as concerns railroad law. I will not look at where the Texas Central entities stand now, because I will have more on that subject soon.

Read more: https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/high-performance/part-7-what-the-texas-court-did-and-didnt-say/?RAchannel=home