Preseault v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996 · Property

100 F.3d 1525

Updated July 9, 2026

propertytakingseasementsrails-to-trailsFifth AmendmentTakings Clausephysical takingrailroad easement

Facts

The Preseaults owned fee simple interests in three parcels in Vermont over which a railroad had acquired rights-of-way in 1899. Under Vermont law, the Federal Circuit concluded those transfers created railroad easements, not fee simple ownership in the railroad, and the fee remained in the underlying landowners and later passed to the Preseaults. Railroad operations ceased, and in 1975 tracks and related rail materials were removed from the portion crossing the parcels. In 1985-86, acting under federal Rails-to-Trails authority and ICC approval, the State and City converted the corridor into a public bicycle and pedestrian path that the public regularly used across the Preseaults' land.

Issue

Whether federal authorization and conversion of the former railroad right-of-way into a public recreational trail constituted a compensable taking of the Preseaults' property under the Fifth Amendment. The question depended on whether the railroad had only easements, whether trail use fell within the scope of those easements, whether the easements had already been abandoned, and whether the taking was attributable to the federal government.

Rule

State law defines the nature of the underlying property interests. If a railroad corridor is held only as an easement for railroad purposes, federal Rails-to-Trails action effects a compensable physical taking when it imposes trail use outside the scope of that easement or when the easement had already been abandoned, thereby burdening or occupying the fee owner's right of exclusive possession. General federal railroad regulation does not by itself redefine or extinguish those state-created property rights without compensation, and federal liability exists when the government authorizes and controls the conduct that causes the occupation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Ohio, a railroad acquired a strip across Lena Ortiz's farm through a 1902 instrument stating the company had entered upon and occupied the land "for the purposes of its railroad," after the route had been surveyed and located. Decades later, the federal government authorized the strip's conversion into a public walking trail, and Lena sues for compensation, arguing the railroad had only an easement under Ohio law.

What is the strongest reason Lena can prevail on the threshold property-interest issue?

Explanation. The majority held that state law defines the relevant property interest. If the railroad acquired only an easement for railroad purposes, the underlying fee remained with the landowner and can support a physical takings claim when trail use exceeds that easement or follows abandonment. The court rejected both automatic federal redefinition of title and reliance on the owner's subjective expectations. (Derived from Preseault v. United States (n.d.).)