Railroad Co's Suit Against City Ordinance Re Haul Permit, Plus Criminal Matter

By FindLaw Staff on June 16, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

US v. Graham, No. 09-6013, concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of defendant's motion for a certificate of innocence after his conviction for embezzlement of his employer was overturned.  In affirming the denial, the court held that defendant has not demonstrated that the court abused its discretion in concluding that he failed to meet his burden under the second clause of section 2513(a)(2), that he did not, by misconduct or neglect, cause or bring about his own prosecution. 

Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. City of Alexandria, No. 09-1566, concerned an action for a declaratory judgment against a city, arising from an ordinance to regulate ethanol transloading at plaintiff's facility.  In affirming the judgment in part, the court held that the ordinance, as applied to plaintiff through the permit, is preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA).  Further, the district court's judgment with respect to the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) and Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA) is vacate, and because the disposition of the ICCTA claim renders other preemption claims moot, the HMTA claim is dismissed.     

Related Resources:

Copied to clipboard