Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): a permissive appeal, pursuant to Rule 5, Ala. R.App. P. On October 27, 2014, this Court granted the petition for a permissive appeal to address whether Goldthwaite’s nuisance claims are preempted by the ICCTA. Standard of Review “This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s conclusions of law. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Harris, 882 So.2d 849, 852 (Ala.2003). “‘The appropriate standard of review of a trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss is whether “when the allegations of the complaint are viewed most strongly in the pleader’s favor, it appears that the pleader could prove any set of circumstances that would entitle [the pleader] to relief.” Nance v. Matthews, 622 So.2d 297, 299 (Ala.1993); Raley v. Citibanc of Alaba Santa Fe Ry., 280 F.Supp.2d 919, 934-35 (D.S.D.2003)(<HOLDING>). Here, Goldthwaite seeks damages for the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the iccta preempted statelaw nuisance claim with respect to operation of side track (B) holding that the iccta preempted statelaw nuisance claim with regard to railway traffic (C) holding that the iccta preempted statelaw claims alleging tortious interference and seeking punitive damages (D) holding that the iccta preempted statelaw tortiousinterference claim (E) holding that the iccta preempted statelaw negligence and nuisance claims intended to interfere with railroads operation of switchyard
Output (English): holding that the iccta preempted statelaw nuisance claim with respect to operation of side track