Case ID: pa_596/html/0575-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

947 A.2d 708
    Sally L. MOODY, Robert J. Moody, Fred J. Brient, Jr., Cynthia I. Brient, William Duff McCrady, William A. Lucas, A.J. Lucas, Glenn G. Beatty, Sharon L. Beatty, Rodney J. Denardo, Melissa Denardo, Dennis H. Iseman, William R. Iseman and Estate of Mary E. Keller, David J. Kushon, and Janie B. Kushon, Petitioners v. ALLEGHENY VALLEY LAND TRUST, Armstrong County Conservancy Charitable Trust, Armstrong Rails to Trails Association, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Jerry F. Longwell, Lee J. Calarie, David R. Ruppert, Norman Karp, and Wilhelminna Decock, Respondents.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    April 16, 2008.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 16th day of April, 2008, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioners, are:

1. Did the Superior Court err as a matter of state and federal law, in reversing the trial judge’s finding that Conrail intended to abandon the line without railbanking, when:
a. Conrail testified that they expressly refused to rail-bank “privately” or “publicly;”
b. Conrail testified that “they did not enter into any kind of rail banking agreement with any party;” and
c. Conrail proposed and entered an agreement of sale in which they did not retain any right to reenter or reactivate the line; the Superior Court’s decision conflicts with prior Superior Court decisions in this case that Conrail abandoned all past, present, and future interest in the easement[?]
2. Did the Superior Court err as a matter of state and federal law when it held that the mere sale of a former easement, created for railroad purposes only, to a private trail sponsor must result in a railbanking?
8. Did the Superior Court err as a matter of law when it held that trail use constituted continued rail use under Pennsylvania law?
4. Does the Superior Court’s holding result in an unconstitutional taking, as Respondents:
a. Are not a municipality with powers of eminent domain authorized by the PA Act as was the case in Buffalo Twp; and
b. Cannot meet the requirements of the National Trails System Act; including the voluntary agreement of the railroad to railbank?

Justice McCAFFERY did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.