Falcon48 wrote: The Illinois statute involved in these two cases wasn't directed at emergency services (blocked crossing statutes and ordinances typically aren't).
Two cases? We have discussed the Mundlein case. What is the other Illinois case? Are you referring to Eagle Marine Industries, Inc. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (2008) 363 Ill. App. 3d 1166?
I don't want to get involved in what appears to be becoming an increasingly heated exchange, but I have some additional information on the Illinois cases which might be useful.
The Illinois statute involved in these two cases wasn't directed at emergency services (blocked crossing statutes and ordinances typically aren't). It imposed a blanket 10 minute restriction for blocked crossings throughout the state, without regard to whether emergency responders ever used a particular crossing or needed to use a crossing. The facts of the two cases similarly didn't involve emergency services. Rather they involved situations where a train either physically couldn't move due to a malfunction, or couldn't legally move because of FRA brake inspection and testing requirements. With regard to the latter, when FRA was considering its current brake rules some years ago, FRA was told that the rule, as proposed, would result in more blocked crossings. FRA did not make changes in the rule to address this issue.
The Illinois cases actually aren't anything new. Similar decisions have been made in other jurisdictions going back to the 1990's. There is at least one decision (I believe it's Friberg vs KCS in the Federal 5th circuit court of appeals) in which the court shot down a blocked crossing restriction but suggested that the outcome would have been different had the court been dealing a statute that was limited to requiring a railroad to clear a crossing for emergency services.
As noted by one of the other posters, ralroads typically have internal rules requiring stopped trains to cut crossings if they can't be cleared after a stated period of time. But, as shown by the facts in the Illnois cases, there are situations where this can't be done within the limits of state or local restrictions. For example, under the Illinois law, it would be pretty difficult to cut a train within 10 minutes of the train being stopped (particularly if a crewmember had to walk back very far from the loco to make the cut), and impossible to meet the 10 minute restriction if the train required more than a simple set and release (continuity) brake test when put back together.
spokyone wrote: MichaelSol wrote: My point is: it was the name-calling I objected to -- the reflexive psychological need by some posters to drag someone through the dirt simply because they disagree with them.
MichaelSol wrote: My point is: it was the name-calling I objected to -- the reflexive psychological need by some posters to drag someone through the dirt simply because they disagree with them.
My point is: it was the name-calling I objected to -- the reflexive psychological need by some posters to drag someone through the dirt simply because they disagree with them.
Yes, you both tried to pick the fight ... and no, the "media and the general public" aren't always the idiots you guys try and portray, and no, your accusation that I was trying to be "smooth" ---with some implication contained therein -- was likewise your misreading of the case, even as you tried to personalize your disagreement with my summary of the case by making a derogatory reference to my personal integrity.
I continue to object to the name-calling that you both intitiated on this thread, and are now trying to perpetuate by continued personalized comments that have nothing to do with the case. And let's see, another poster referred to some people as just plain stupid, and another a crack about lawyers. Well, there are just deserts that result from that approach. Everytime there is a serious discussion, you guys show up with your mistatements of fact, general conclusions about the media, the public, Villages, the Moderators, and anyone else in your sights, or whom you disagree with and yet ... you guys always seem to get your facts wrong. Any thoughts as to why that is? And yes, I do consider it reflexive because each of you set the tone for the ensuing discussion, with no prior provocation for doing so. People that don't seem to know the subject area, but feel compelled to comment anyway, seem to always end up doing that, through sarcasm, personal innuendoes, outright insults .... and your post above does not disappoint anyone who might have expected otherwise, such as a post on the subject matter at hand.
Krazykat112079 wrote: True, I initially misunderstood the case. But your logic is faulty in concluding that I would not go back and attempt to clarify in my mind what I misunderstood.
True, I initially misunderstood the case. But your logic is faulty in concluding that I would not go back and attempt to clarify in my mind what I misunderstood.
My objection is to people who don't have the faintest idea what they are talking about, but sure are willing to come onto a thread and jump all over the "media and the general public" for "once again" taking everything out of context. In your case, as you acknowledge, you were ready to denounce pretty much everyone for not being as clued in as you were and who were ready to "blow everything out of proportion" before you took the time to read the opinions carefully. You had your mind made up, you didn't really care what the opinions said.
The nature of your comments takes otherwise interesting legal issues and makes them unduly contentious because that really seems to be your purpose: denounce just how stupid you think everyone is -- even as you misunderstood the case yourself; the natural just deserts of agenda-driven, rather than process-driven, analysis. This underscores your further misunderstanding of my comment regarding having an "authority" for an opinion -- a basis in fact or in research. You were indignant at even the thought of having a basis for an opinion. Just so. That may be why you use the word "jack squat" in reference to outside attitudes about your "opinions", based on your own self-described approach to developing them.
"Preemption" is a relatively complex legal issue. The U.S. Supreme Court has wrestled with it for over 200 years. However, it is not impenetrable, and when even the FRA itself suggests there is no preemption, one has to wonder why the Illinois appellate court system was so anxious to find it.
MichaelSol wrote: Krazykat112079 wrote: As for how he developed that opinion, perhaps he read the opinion of the Appellate court and agreed with them. I did. Is that a crime?Considering that you concluded this: Krazykat112079 wrote: But it all comes down to this: The Village ordinance isn't wrong, just the application was. I think the media and the general public has once again taken a story out of context and blown it out of proportion. That tells me that you didn't understand, after reading the opinion, the difference between reversing a trial court on its exercise of discretion with regard to the ordinance, or invalidating the ordinance altogether.You clearly don't understand the case or what happened in it. And yet, you were all set to blame everyone in sight -- the media and the general public -- ironically for not understanding the case and blowing it "out of proportion." But you like the outcome, and for some people, that's all that matters.No, that's not against the law.
Krazykat112079 wrote: As for how he developed that opinion, perhaps he read the opinion of the Appellate court and agreed with them. I did. Is that a crime?
As for how he developed that opinion, perhaps he read the opinion of the Appellate court and agreed with them. I did. Is that a crime?
Considering that you concluded this:
Krazykat112079 wrote: But it all comes down to this: The Village ordinance isn't wrong, just the application was. I think the media and the general public has once again taken a story out of context and blown it out of proportion.
But it all comes down to this: The Village ordinance isn't wrong, just the application was. I think the media and the general public has once again taken a story out of context and blown it out of proportion.
That tells me that you didn't understand, after reading the opinion, the difference between reversing a trial court on its exercise of discretion with regard to the ordinance, or invalidating the ordinance altogether.
You clearly don't understand the case or what happened in it. And yet, you were all set to blame everyone in sight -- the media and the general public -- ironically for not understanding the case and blowing it "out of proportion."
But you like the outcome, and for some people, that's all that matters.
No, that's not against the law.
True, I initially misunderstood the case. But your logic is faulty in concluding that I would not go back and attempt to clarify in my mind what I misunderstood. It is also faulty in that my misunderstanding arose from reading the opinion of the Supreme Court and not that of the Appellate Court, which I read after reading the Supreme Court opinion and in more detail.
Also true, I do like the outcome and that does matter to me. Here is why, though. The circumstances of the incident did not even satisfy the the ordinance of the Village, regardless if it is preempted or not. The village was, in my non-lawyer so it means absolutely jack squat to you but I still care about it opinion, abusing its power.
If the facts of the incident had shown that the train was not disabled and that the railroad had blocked the intersection without cause, my opinion would be for the Village.
"Lawyers are like nuclear weapons. I got 'em because the other side's got 'em, but once you use 'em, they screw everything up." -- Danny Divito in "Other People's Money"
This whole thing could have been worked out over a cup of coffee.
A little common sense on the part of the Mudlein city government would have left the law intact. Few people, if anyone, would argue that a railroad should be able to simply park a train, at its convinience, across a road and leave it there. But that's not what happened here.
This train had problems. It had: 1) a dynamiter, 2) dragging equipment, and 3) a broken draw bar. I think the Wisconsin Central crews did a fantastic job getting it moving as fast as they did.
Mundlein could have recognized that this was an unusual, specific incident, had a talk with the railroad, and let it go. But no, they literally put the railroad's back against the wall. They tried to fine the carrier because a train broke down.
The railroad could not stand idle and let this happen, so they fought it in court, and won. The decision by the Illinois Supreme Court was unanimous. Not one justice voted the other way.
And now, because of the beyond foolish actions of the city government of Mundlein, IL, there is no law limiting the time a crossing may legally be blocked in Illinois. And there can't be a new state law concerning the matter. Nobody really objected to the time limits, as long as they weren't used when trains were disabled. But Mundlein pushed it, and now there's yet another mess in Illinois.
Krazykat112079 wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Since the US Supreme Court and even the FRA itself appear to hold a different position, I am curious, what is your legal basis and authority for your personal opinion on this conclusion? Holy cow, I didn't know you had to have authority to have an opinion. Where do you submit the application for authority to posess opinions?
MichaelSol wrote: Since the US Supreme Court and even the FRA itself appear to hold a different position, I am curious, what is your legal basis and authority for your personal opinion on this conclusion?
Since the US Supreme Court and even the FRA itself appear to hold a different position, I am curious, what is your legal basis and authority for your personal opinion on this conclusion?
Holy cow, I didn't know you had to have authority to have an opinion. Where do you submit the application for authority to posess opinions?
Many places.
In engineering, get a degree, pass the test, get your license. In medicine, get a degree, pass the test, get your license. In law, get a degree, pass the test, get your license. Then you are qualified to offer opinions on engineering, qualified to offer opinions on medicine and qualified to offer opinions on law. Takes some time, some energy, some commitment to get the qualifications.
But in each of those, and many other professions, you rely on "authority" as a term of art describing the academic, scientific, legal or professional sources that support an "opinion." In any profession, anyone who offers an "opinion" without being able to cite the "authority" for it would appear to his or her peers as purely a charlatan; someone who lacks the competency to offer the opinion in the first place.
Any "opinion" always carries itself better when backed up by citations to "authority", and particularly so if the "opinion" doesn't get something completely backwards factually -- as you did. But, if that were a requirement of law, that might put at least a couple of folks out of the opinion business entirely.
spokyone wrote: MichaelSol wrote: spokyone wrote: I believe the Appellate court acted properly. Since the US Supreme Court and even the FRA itself appear to hold a different positionBy APPEAR do you mean in your opinion?
MichaelSol wrote: spokyone wrote: I believe the Appellate court acted properly. Since the US Supreme Court and even the FRA itself appear to hold a different position
spokyone wrote: I believe the Appellate court acted properly.
Since the US Supreme Court and even the FRA itself appear to hold a different position
I offered you the courtesy of citing cases from the "highest court" in the land, uniquely empowered by the Constitution to express opinons on precisely such issues, and I did take the time to cite the appropriate portions of those cases that deal with the specific topic.
In addition, I cited to the FRA reports that express the FRA's attitude on the matter which is 1) they have no regulations nor has Congress commanded any on the subject of rail crossing blockage, and 2) that they believe local communities are in the best position to resolve the problems.
I utilized those as the basis for my opinion. Had they been substantively different, my "opinion" would have been different since my opinion is nothing more than the effort to summarize what appears to me to be the controlling law on the subject.
MichaelSol wrote: spokyone wrote: I believe the Appellate court acted properly. Since the US Supreme Court and even the FRA itself appear to hold a different position, I am curious, what is your legal basis and authority for your personal opinion on this conclusion? What are your criteria for "acting properly"?
Since the US Supreme Court and even the FRA itself appear to hold a different position, I am curious, what is your legal basis and authority for your personal opinion on this conclusion? What are your criteria for "acting properly"?
spokyone wrote: MichaelSol wrote: I'll bet WC spent considerably more of its shareholder money to overturn this ordinance than to simply comply, or even just to pay the fine. I suggested no such thing.
MichaelSol wrote: I'll bet WC spent considerably more of its shareholder money to overturn this ordinance than to simply comply, or even just to pay the fine.
I'll bet WC spent considerably more of its shareholder money to overturn this ordinance than to simply comply, or even just to pay the fine.
I suggested no such thing.
But earlier, the identical person suggested exactly "such thing":
spokyone wrote:No. I am suggesting that WC is going to save attorney fees.
You want something your way here, whatever it is. I can't tell. Well, whether you are or are not gleeful over attorney fees, or something else, take it, with my compliments.
MichaelSol wrote: I'll bet WC spent considerably more of its shareholder money to overturn this ordinance than to simply comply, or even just to pay the fine. And between the Trial court and the Appellate courts, I'm not convinced either one handled this case very well, but to suggest that outcomes should be based on attorney fees is, well ....
And between the Trial court and the Appellate courts, I'm not convinced either one handled this case very well, but to suggest that outcomes should be based on attorney fees is, well ....
spokyone wrote: MichaelSol wrote: spokyone wrote: WC has no incentive to keep the crossings clear.Suggesting that the ordinance was necessary?No. I am suggesting that WC is going to save attorney fees.
MichaelSol wrote: spokyone wrote: WC has no incentive to keep the crossings clear.Suggesting that the ordinance was necessary?
spokyone wrote: WC has no incentive to keep the crossings clear.
WC has no incentive to keep the crossings clear.
Suggesting that the ordinance was necessary?
Obeying the law is always one way of avoiding attorney fees, but that's just not as satisfying is it?
The village argues that the train crew should have done an additional inspection when the train was 10 miles away. I am surprised a trial judge would rule in favor of the village. The village had a weak argument and now look what happened. No more ordinance. WC has no incentive to keep the crossings clear.
jeaton wrote: Beyond their possible right to do so in any circumstances, I wonder if Mundelien's situation is really one of safety, or just a political response to complaints by citizens to being inconvenienced by stopped trains. A post above notes the existance of clear options available allowing prompt movement of emergency responders via routes not blocked by a train. So this raises a question. Was the motivation for passing the ordinance really the safety issue, or was it to appease citizen complaints and perhaps pick up a little extra income for the village coffers?
Beyond their possible right to do so in any circumstances, I wonder if Mundelien's situation is really one of safety, or just a political response to complaints by citizens to being inconvenienced by stopped trains. A post above notes the existance of clear options available allowing prompt movement of emergency responders via routes not blocked by a train. So this raises a question. Was the motivation for passing the ordinance really the safety issue, or was it to appease citizen complaints and perhaps pick up a little extra income for the village coffers?
This raises two troubling questions.
First, should a court inquire as to whether a Village has a right to enforce an ordinance against all crossings, or just some of them based on "convenience" and location as adjudged by a court attempting to anticipate all possible permutations of location of emergencies and location of emergency responders? I think the task would be impossible and far beyond what courts are supposed to do.
Second, should the courts be required to inquire into the motive of each and every person voting for a particular ordinance, to see if their motives were pure enough to meet ... what? ... a court's arbitrary criteria of appropriate motive?
Don't railroads pick up "a little extra income" from captive shippers?
Is there an inappropriate motive in that?
jeaton wrote: However, I think reason might suggest that fines would only be assesed in the event that the railroad refused to open a street crossing when there was no mechanical problem keeping the train from being cut and the blocked cars moved.
However, I think reason might suggest that fines would only be assesed in the event that the railroad refused to open a street crossing when there was no mechanical problem keeping the train from being cut and the blocked cars moved.
And that is how I read this ordinance; that it was, in fact, carefully drafted to protect the railroad from being fined for mechanical problems -- problems beyond its "control" -- but would be fined for blocking the crossing for more than ten minutes if the circumstance was one that the railroad could control. Practically speaking, the ordinance appears to be close to what the FRA has recommended, particularly in the context that the advantage goes to the railroad company -- nobody clicks the stopwatch when the train crosses the crossing, and the burden of proof of the minimum time frame is on the Village. Realistically, ten minutes is the minimum that the train would be allowed to block the crossing, rather than the apparent maximum.
The Trial court looked at the facts under the ordinance; the Illinois Supreme Court said they didn't matter since the ordinance was unenforceable as a matter of law.
tomikawaTT wrote: spokyone wrote: MichaelSol wrote:I'd like to see someone block the rail line for ten minutes ... and claim it's only "fair." These ordinances generally originate with the public safety agencies I disagree. Those ordinances have never, IIRC, been as a result of a life being lost. They (politician, newspaper reporter) say "Someday we may have an emergency when a train is blocking a road, therefore let's make the railroad change."More than a few were driven by Mr and Mrs Megabucks calling in favors from their bought and paid for politicians after having been inconvenienced ONCE by such an incident.Go back a few months and look at the thread that described a newcomer to town expecting the railroad to move because SHE objected to the noise of passing trains - on a railroad which had been there two hundred times as long as she had.Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.Chuck
spokyone wrote: MichaelSol wrote:I'd like to see someone block the rail line for ten minutes ... and claim it's only "fair." These ordinances generally originate with the public safety agencies I disagree. Those ordinances have never, IIRC, been as a result of a life being lost. They (politician, newspaper reporter) say "Someday we may have an emergency when a train is blocking a road, therefore let's make the railroad change."
MichaelSol wrote:I'd like to see someone block the rail line for ten minutes ... and claim it's only "fair." These ordinances generally originate with the public safety agencies
More than a few were driven by Mr and Mrs Megabucks calling in favors from their bought and paid for politicians after having been inconvenienced ONCE by such an incident.
Go back a few months and look at the thread that described a newcomer to town expecting the railroad to move because SHE objected to the noise of passing trains - on a railroad which had been there two hundred times as long as she had.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Chuck
Usually these kind of comments are reserved for "bought and paid for" politicans that are appointed by their cronies to Supreme Courts or elected courtesy of huge corporate contributions, and always rule in favor of the big corporate interests. Sometimes these are even characterized as decisions based on the "greed" and "arrogance" of ruthless, powerful corporate entities. It is refreshing, finally, to see a recognition that there can be two sides to these matters and that even stupid people who haven't lived in one place long enough to suit somebody else's opinion can apparently control outcomes of important litigation.
That is what you meant, isn't it?
spokyone wrote: Very smooth Michael: We need not consider the Village's argument that the trial court did not err in applying the ordinance to the facts of this case.
Very smooth Michael:
We need not consider the Village's argument that the trial court did not err in applying the ordinance to the facts of this case.
Nothing smooth about it. That's what is said. The Village wanted to argue that the ordinance applied to the specific facts of this case, and that the Trial Court had carefully looked at the facts, and in upholding the Village, read them in the context of the words of the ordinance.
The Illinois Supreme Court said they did not have to consider whether or not the ordinance applied to the facts of the case. That was because they found that the ordinance was preempted by Federal law, and by finding that, they did not have to proceed to investigate whether or not the Trial Court's application of the actual "facts" made any difference or not. The "facts" didn't matter because of the Court's use of the doctrine of preemption.
A couple of you gentlemen aren't reading carefully, or don't understand the language of courts.
The Village wanted to talk "facts" and how the ordinance applied. The Illinois Supreme Cour disagreed: "We need not consider [as urged by the Village].... the facts of the case."
They couldn't, under their view of preemption.
erikem wrote: jeaton wrote: I agree that the Illinois Supreme Court may have erred on this decision. The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution grants the right of the US Congress to regulate commerce between the state, but I do not think it completely or automatically preempts the states from establishing laws or regulations the may have an impact on interstate commerce. The cited FRA statement notes that their action in this area is advisory, and it appears to me that the regulation of blocked crossings may be controled by local ordinance.Your interpertation of the Commerce Clause sounds reasonable to me, however the SCOTUS has taken a more inclusive view of the clause. One example is the law requiring states to approve use of 53' trailers.
jeaton wrote: I agree that the Illinois Supreme Court may have erred on this decision. The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution grants the right of the US Congress to regulate commerce between the state, but I do not think it completely or automatically preempts the states from establishing laws or regulations the may have an impact on interstate commerce. The cited FRA statement notes that their action in this area is advisory, and it appears to me that the regulation of blocked crossings may be controled by local ordinance.
I agree that the Illinois Supreme Court may have erred on this decision. The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution grants the right of the US Congress to regulate commerce between the state, but I do not think it completely or automatically preempts the states from establishing laws or regulations the may have an impact on interstate commerce. The cited FRA statement notes that their action in this area is advisory, and it appears to me that the regulation of blocked crossings may be controled by local ordinance.
Your interpertation of the Commerce Clause sounds reasonable to me, however the SCOTUS has taken a more inclusive view of the clause. One example is the law requiring states to approve use of 53' trailers.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
jeaton wrote:I agree that the Illinois Supreme Court may have erred on this decision. The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution grants the right of the US Congress to regulate commerce between the state, but I do not think it completely or automatically preempts the states from establishing laws or regulations the may have an impact on interstate commerce. The cited FRA statement notes that their action in this area is advisory, and it appears to me that the regulation of blocked crossings may be controled by local ordinance.
I honestly don't know the answer, but let me pose this. I would not be comfortable if I lived in a community where emergency response units could not reach me promptly if a train was blocking a crossing. Even with a ten minute rule, the delay might be too much to allow a critical rescue or save a burning building. Further, in the absence of planned optional routes, what is to be done if it is physically impossible for the railroad to clear a street crossing?
I'm not saying that local ordinances governing blocked crossings are wrong, even if just for the convenience of local citizens. However, I think reason might suggest that fines would only be assesed in the event that the railroad refused to open a street crossing when there was no mechanical problem keeping the train from being cut and the blocked cars moved.
spokyone wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Well, something might be "out of context and .... out of proportion" but I am reading it differently. The ordinance was struck down. The Court specifically stated the facts of the case didn't matter.The official Opinion states as follows:"In sum, the saving clause does not apply because the ordinance is incompatible with the federal regulations on train speed and air brake testing. We conclude that the Village's ordinance is preempted by the FRSA and is, therefore, unenforceable. Because we have concluded that the ordinance is preempted by the FRSA, we need not consider ... the facts of this case. Accordingly, we affirm the appellate court's conclusion that the Village's ordinance is preempted by the FRSA." Very smooth Michael: We need not consider the Village's argument that the trial court did not err in applying the ordinance to the facts of this case.
MichaelSol wrote: Well, something might be "out of context and .... out of proportion" but I am reading it differently. The ordinance was struck down. The Court specifically stated the facts of the case didn't matter.The official Opinion states as follows:"In sum, the saving clause does not apply because the ordinance is incompatible with the federal regulations on train speed and air brake testing. We conclude that the Village's ordinance is preempted by the FRSA and is, therefore, unenforceable. Because we have concluded that the ordinance is preempted by the FRSA, we need not consider ... the facts of this case. Accordingly, we affirm the appellate court's conclusion that the Village's ordinance is preempted by the FRSA."
Well, something might be "out of context and .... out of proportion" but I am reading it differently. The ordinance was struck down. The Court specifically stated the facts of the case didn't matter.
The official Opinion states as follows:
"In sum, the saving clause does not apply because the ordinance is incompatible with the federal regulations on train speed and air brake testing. We conclude that the Village's ordinance is preempted by the FRSA and is, therefore, unenforceable. Because we have concluded that the ordinance is preempted by the FRSA, we need not consider ... the facts of this case. Accordingly, we affirm the appellate court's conclusion that the Village's ordinance is preempted by the FRSA."
Didn't expect that. Maybe Mike is just quoting and not editing.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.