§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Sierra Club, et al., Appellants,v.Village of Painted Post, et al., Respondents.

Brief

17 Cited authorities

  1. Society of Plastics v. Suffolk

    77 N.Y.2d 761 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 959 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Society of Plastics Indus. v. County of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 570 N.Y.S.2d 778, 573 N.E.2d 1034 (1991), this Court examined the law of standing, and set forth a framework for deciding whether parties have standing to challenge governmental action in land use matters generally, and under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art. 8 [SEQRA]), specifically.

  2. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. City of Alexandria

    608 F.3d 150 (4th Cir. 2010)   Cited 145 times
    Holding that "ethanol transloading falls within the ICCTA's preemptive scope"

  3. Save the Pine Bush v. Common Council

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 7667 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 117 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Matter of Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Common Council of City of Albany, 13 N.Y.3d 297, 890 N.Y.S.2d 405, 918 N.E.2d 917, the Court of Appeals held that, in land-use and environmental cases, “a person who can prove that he or she uses and enjoys a natural resource more than most other members of the public has standing... to challenge government actions that threaten that resource” (id. at 301, 890 N.Y.S.2d 405, 918 N.E.2d 917).

  4. City of Auburn v. United States

    154 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 124 times
    Holding that an appeal was moot where a petitioner who was denied a hearing in one proceeding was able to raise its concerns in a separate petition for a declaratory order

  5. Green Mountain R.R. Corp. v. Vermont

    404 F.3d 638 (2d Cir. 2005)   Cited 102 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding permit requirement was "preempted for two reasons: it unduly interfere[d] with interstate commerce by giving the local body the ability to deny the carrier the right to construct facilities or conduct operations; and it [could] be time-consuming, allowing a local body to delay construction of railroad facilities almost indefinitely"

  6. CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Georgia Public Service Commission

    944 F. Supp. 1573 (N.D. Ga. 1996)   Cited 85 times
    Holding that the Termination Act preempted state regulation of railroad agency closing

  7. Rushing v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.

    194 F. Supp. 2d 493 (S.D. Miss. 2001)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that negligence and nuisance claim related to damage from stormwater runoff from railroad property is not "the type of economic regulation Congress was attempting to prescribe when it enacted the ICCTA" and is not preempted

  8. Village of Ridgefield Park v. New York, Susquehanna & Western Railway Corp.

    163 N.J. 446 (N.J. 2000)   Cited 31 times
    Holding that state and local regulation "must not have the effect of foreclosing or restricting the railroad's ability to conduct its operations or otherwise unreasonably burdening interstate commerce"

  9. Guckenberg v. Wisconsin Central Ltd.

    178 F. Supp. 2d 954 (E.D. Wis. 2001)   Cited 22 times
    Holding the ICCTA preempts state nuisance claim based on sounds from switching yard

  10. Sierra Club v. Vill. of Painted Post

    115 A.D.3d 1310 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 6 times

    2014-03-28 In the Matter of SIERRA CLUB, People for a Healthy Environment, Inc., Coalition to Protect New York, John Marvin, Theresa Finneran, Michael Finneran, Virginia Hauff and Jean Wosinski, Petitioners–Respondents, v. VILLAGE OF PAINTED POST, Painted Post Development, LLC, Swepi, LP, Respondents–Appellants, and Wellsboro and Corning Railroad, LLC, Respondent–Respondent. Harris Beach PLLC, Pittsford (Joseph D. Picciotti of Counsel), for Respondents–Appellants. Richard J. Lippes & Associates,

  11. Section 10501 - General jurisdiction

    49 U.S.C. § 10501   Cited 538 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Assigning exclusive jurisdiction over "transportation by rail carriers" and "the construction ... operation ... of ... tracks" to the Surface Transportation Board

  12. Section 10102 - Definitions

    49 U.S.C. § 10102   Cited 379 times
    Defining "transportation" for purposes of the Act

  13. Section 8-0101 - Purpose

    N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law § 8-0101   Cited 56 times

    It is the purpose of this act to declare a state policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and enhance human and community resources; and to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems, natural, human and community resources important to the people of the state. N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law § 8-0101