HOPI INDIAN TRIBE

v.

BLOCK, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL.; AND NAVAJO MEDICINEMEN'S ASSN. ET AL. V. BLOCK, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Ill. Commerce Comm'n v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 779 F.2d 1270 (7th Cir. 1985)
  …901(a), or a “spur, industrial, team, switching, or side” track, exempt from Commission jurisdiction pursuant to § 10907(b), turns on the intended use of the track segment, not on the label or cost of the segment.”) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1056, 104 S.Ct. 739, 79 L.Ed.2d 197 (1984). In its decision which is before us, the ICC found use to be “the controlling factor,” ICC Decision, Finance Docket No. 30401 (January 11, 1985), and concluded that because the subject line is used as part of…
• Hughes v. Consol-Pennsylvania Coal Co., 945 F.2d 594 (3d Cir. 1991)
  …the territory occupied by another railroad, that track is an extension. See Texas & Pac. Ry. v. Gulf, Colo. & Santa Fe Ry., 270 U.S. 266, 278, 46 S.Ct. 263, 266, 70 L.Ed. 578 (1926); Nicholson v. ICC, 711 F. 2d 364, 368 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1056, 104 S.Ct. 739, 79 L.Ed.2d 197 (1984). If, however, the track is “designed and used for loading, unloading, switching, and other purposes connected with, and incidental to, but not actually and directly used for [transporting goods between two diffe…
• United States v. Billie, 667 F. Supp. 1485 (S.D. Fla. 1987)