Keywords: California, appellate court, railroad, rights-of-way

A California appellate court has held that a railroad cannot charge rent to a petroleum pipeline on rights-of-way where the title claimed by the railroad is derived from 19th-century land grants by the US Congress, which were intended to encourage the building of the transcontinental railroads. The decision in Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc., 231 Cal. App. 4th 134, 180 Cal. Rptr. 3d 173 (2014) (pet. for Cal. Sup. Court hearing pending), has potentially far-reaching implications for both railroads and their tenants in the western United States.

During the trial to determine the fair market rent payable under an easement agreement between a railroad and a petroleum pipeline company for a ten-year period, the pipeline moved for judgment on the grounds that the railroad had failed to prove that it owned the property through which the easements and pipeline ran, even though the easement agreement only required payment for easements on the "property of the railroad." The trial court conceded that the railroad had not offered "direct evidence of its title," but nevertheless concluded that the railroad's ownership had "been adequately shown for purposes of this proceeding."

On appeal, the Second District of the California Court of Appeal disagreed, based on a lengthy analysis of both federal and state case law discussing 19th-century Congressional land grants to railroads, and reversed the $100 million judgment for back rent. The court noted that public land had been "allocated to the railroads by the federal government for a specific purpose—to construct and operate a transcontinental railroad, in order to help protect the nation during civil strife, to expand its frontier, grow its economy, and develop its future." In this context, the court analyzed the General Right-of-Way Act of 1875 and concluded that "the railroad's rights to the land underneath its rights-of-way granted by the 1875 Act were limited to what was necessary to support the railroad itself," and that the subsurface through which the pipeline ran was unnecessary to support the railroad and thus not a "railroad purpose"; it therefore was not the "property of the railroad."

The court then reached the same result under Congressional land grants prior to 1875: "Renting out the subsurface to a third party from a different industry for private gain cannot reasonably be considered a railroad purpose" within the meaning of those earlier grants. The court ordered that the case be remanded so the trial court could identify those portions of the right-of-way where the railroad held a property interest sufficient to grant the pipeline an easement, and to calculate the fair market rent due just for those portions.

This decision will be of interest to both railroads and their many tenants in the western United States, because the California court's analysis of the scope of the Congressional land grants is likely to be applicable to a number of other railroad rights-of-way, and also to entities that may pay rent to railroads for use of railroad rights-of-way (such as gas and electric utilities, municipal water and sewer systems).

Originally published January 9, 2015

Learn more about our Supreme Court & Appellate practice.

Visit us at

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2014. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.