Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v. Public Utilities Com'n of State of Cal., 86-2983
| Decision Date | 30 June 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-2983,86-2983 |
| Citation | 820 F.2d 1111 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, Railway Labor Executives' Association, Intervenor-Appellee, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA; Donald Vial, President; Victor Calvo, Commissioner of Public Utilities Commission; Priscilla C. Grew, Commissioner of the Public Utilities Commission; Stanley Hulett, Commissioner of the Public Utilities Commission, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
John MacDonald Smith, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Harvey Y. Morris, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Lawrence M. Mann, Washington, D.C., for intervenor-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Before GOODWIN, BEEZER and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the California Public Utilities Commission set forth in the district court's opinion in Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n, 647 F.Supp. 1220 (N.D.Cal.1986). We note that the district court failed to recognize that the topic of railtrack clearances had been mentioned in an administrative statement issued by the Federal Railroad Administration in 1978. This oversight, however, does not detract from the soundness of the district court's reasoning nor its conclusion that California's track clearance and walkway regulations have not been preempted by federal rule, regulation, order or standard covering the same subject matter as these state requirements. 45 U.S.C. Sec. 434. This conclusion of the district court is correct.
Because there has been no federal preemption of California's track clearance and walkway requirements, we do not reach the questions whether these requirements are necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety hazard, are not incompatible with any federal law, rule, regulation, order or standard, and do not create an undue burden on interstate commerce. See id.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nickels v. Grand Trunk Western R.R., Inc.
...478 (Colo.Ct.App.2003);3 see also S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 647 F.Supp. 1220 (N.D.Cal.1986), af'd per curiam, 820 F.2d 1111 (9th Cir. 1987). This of course is not to say that a jury may require an action that violates the FRSA regulation. If, for instance, a successful FELA......
-
Powell v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
...WL 3724425, at *4–5 (D.Mont. Sept. 15, 2010) (same). Allenbaugh and Abromeit rely on Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n of State of Cal., 820 F.2d 1111 (9th Cir.1987) (per curiam), which predates Easterwood and which affirmed a district court opinion that held Californi......
-
CSX TRANS., INC. v. Miller
...distinction was noted in Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n, 647 F.Supp. 1220, 1225 (N.D.Cal.1986), aff'd, 820 F.2d 1111 (9th Cir.1987): The ballast regulations . . . are designed to insure that tracks have adequate support.. . . No FRA regulation addresses the concern ......
-
Union Pacific R. Co. v. California Pub. Utilities, C 97-3660 TEH.
...court has found to the contrary. See Southern Pacific Transp. v. Public Utilities Comm'n, 647 F.Supp. 1220 (N.D.Cal.1986), aff'd, 820 F.2d 1111 (9th Cir.1987) (holding that state rule authorized under first FRSA savings clause was immune from commerce clause challenge). Upon further reflect......