FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT MARCH 25, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 16000

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 02 -026 34 -C V -C A P -1 C S X T R A N S P O R T A T I O N , I N C ., P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S T A T E B O A R D O F E Q U A L I Z A T I O N , o f th e S ta te o f

G e o r g ia , JE R R Y JA C K S O N , as C om m i ss i on erof R evenue o f th e S ta te o f

G e o r g ia , R U S S E L L W . H I N T O N , a s S ta te A u d ito ro f

th e S ta te o f

G e o r g ia , R A Y J . C R A W F O R D , as D i rect o r o f th e G eo rg i a S t at e P ro p ert i es C o m m is s io n , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M a r c h 25, 2008) ON RE MAND F RO M T HE S UP RE ME CO UR T

O F TH E U N I TED STA TES2

B efo re B IR C H , P R Y O R an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T h i s ap p eal i s o n rem an d fro m th e S u p rem e C o u rto f th e U n i t ed S t at es, w hi ch re vers ed ou r dec i si on of D ec em ber 19, 20 06 , and h el d “ thatra i l roads m ay chal l enge st at e m etho ds for det erm i ni ng the val ue of ra i l road prop erty, as w el l as how thos e m e thods a r e appl i e d. ” C S X T r a ns p. , I nc . v. G a . S t a t e B d. of E qu al i za t i on , 12 8 S . C t . 46 7, 46 9 (20 07 ). A tou r r equest , bo th p art i es fi l ed supp l em ent al bri ef

s. C S X T ranspo rt at i on ar gu es thatthe j ud gm entof the di stri ct c ourts houl d be va c a t e d a nd the c a s e r e m a nde d f orane w tr i a l be f

or e adi f f e r e nt di stri ctj ud ge. T he S t at e B oard of E qu al i za t i on of G eorgi a argues thatnei ther re as si gn m entno r anew tri al i s app ropri at e and , because onl y one i ss ue address ed b y th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w a s b e f o r e th e S u p r e m e C o u rt, w e s h o u ldr e v e r s e o n ly to a llo w th e d is tr ic t c o u rt to c o n s id e rth e ap p r a is a l e v id e n c e o f f e r e d b y th e B o a r d . W e a gr e e w i th the B oa r d tha tr e a s s i gnm e nti s unne c e s s a ry a nd r e m a nd t o a l l ow the di s tr i c tc ourtt o de t e rm i ne i n the f i r s ti ns t a nc e how t o pr oc e e d i n the l i ghtof the d e c is io n o f

th e S u p r e m e C o u rt. T h e s ta n d a r d f

o ro u rr e v ie w o f

th e r e q u e s t o f

C S X f o rr e a s s ig n m e n t is w e lls e tt l e d. T he thr e e c ons i de r a t i ons tha tw e de s c r i be d i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T orki ngt on, 8 7 4 F . 2 d 1 4 4 1 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 8 9 ), g o v ern o u r rev i ew o f th i s req u est . T h ese3

c o n s id e r a tio n s in c lu d e “( 1 ) w h e th e rth e o r ig in a l ju d g e w o u ld h a v e d if f ic u lty p u ttin g h is p r e v io u s v ie w s a n d f in d in g s a s id e ; ( 2 ) w h e th e rr e a s s ig n m e n t is appr opr i a t e t o pr e s e rve the appe a r a nc e of j us t i c e ; [ a nd] ( 3) w he the rr e a s s i gnm e nt w oul d e nt a i l w a s t e a nd dupl i c a t i on outof pr oport i on t o ga i ns r e a l i z e d f r om r e a s s ig n m e n t.” I d . a t 1 4 4 7 . T he ar gu m entof C S X thatw e s ho ul d o rderre as si gn m entfa i l s. C S X ar gu es thatthe di stri ctj ud ge has “ al re ady f orm ed op i ni on s bas ed on a f aul ty l egal p r e m is e ,” b u t C S X id e n tif ie s n o th in g th a t s u g g e s ts th a t th e d is tr ic t ju d g e w o u ld ha ve a ny di f

f i c ul ty c ons i de r i ng the e vi de nc e a ne w i n the l i ghtof the de c i s i on of

the S upr e m e C ourt . W e of

t e n r e qui r e di s tr i c tj udge s t o r e vi s i tthe i rpr e vi ous rul i ngs a f t e rar e ve r s a l by the S upr e m e C ourt , s e e , e . g. , H a rr i s v. C ow e t aC ounty , G a . , 489 F . 3d 1207, 1207 ( 11th C i r . 2007) , a nd ha ve no r e a s on t o be l i e ve tha tr e a s s i gnm e nt is n e c e s s a ry to p r e s e rv e th e ap p e a r a n c e o f ju s tic e w h e n e v e rad e c is io n is r e v e r s e d . W e a gr e e w i th the B oa r d tha tr e a s s i gnm e ntw oul d e nt a i l s i gni f i c a ntw a s t e a nd dupl i c a t i on. T he j udge pr e s i de d ove ra n e i ght - da y tr i a l tha tc onc e rne d a c om pl i c a t e d s ubj e c ta nd dr a f t e d athor ough 27- pa ge opi ni on, as i gni f i c a ntport i on of w hi c h w a s nota f

f e c t e d by the de c i s i on of the S upr e m e C ourt . T hi s appe a l i s not

“ a s i m pl e c as e w i th w hi ch a di ff er entj ud ge coul d q ui ckl y bec om e f am i l i ar . ” T o rk in g to n , 8 7 4 F .2 d a t 1 4 4 7 .4

C S X a l s o a r gue s tha ti ti s e nt i t l e d t o ane w tr i a l , butw e be l i e ve tha tthe procedural deci si on s w hether t o reopen tri al proceedi ng s or hea r a dd i t i on al e v i d e n c e a r e p r o p e r l y l e f tt o th e s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n o f th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt . S e e E E OC v. Joe’ s S t on e C rab, Inc. , 22 0 F . 3d 12 63 , 12 87 n. 23 (11th C i r. 20 00 ). T he di stri ct c o u rt h a s a lr e a d y h e a r d as ig n if ic a n t a m o u n t o f

e v id e n c e f

r o m b o th p a rtie s , a n d it is in th e b e s t p o s itio n to d e te rm in e w h e th e rit n e e d s to h e a rm o r e . In the l i gh tof the deci si on of the S up re m e C ou rt , w e AF F I RM i n pa rta nd R EVER SE i n pa rtthe j udgm e ntof the di s tr i c tc ourta nd RE MAND for f urther p r o c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th e d e c is io n o f th e S u p r e m e C o u rt.