Illinois Central Railroad v. Mayeux ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                             United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS               April 6, 2004
    For the Fifth Circuit
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 03-30319
    ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    VERSUS
    JAMES E. MAYEUX; ET AL.,
    Defendants,
    JAMES E. MAYEUX; BARBARA R. MAYEUX,
    Defendants-Appellants.
    JAMES E. MAYEUX and BARBARA RICHARD MAYEUX,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    VERSUS
    ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    BARBARA RICHARD MAYEUX; ET AL.,
    Plaintiffs,
    BARBARA RICHARD MAYEUX; JAMES E. MAYEUX, JR.,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    VERSUS
    ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    For the Middle District of Louisiana
    (99-CV-678)
    Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    This is the second appeal in this case.          In the first appeal,
    we reversed the district court’s partial summary judgment in favor
    of Illinois Central and remanded for trial upon a single issue of
    disputed fact regarding whether Illinois Central could prove that
    there was a public demand for its proposed expropriation.1                 On
    remand, the district court held a bench trial that included two
    full   days   of   testimony   in   which    numerous    shippers   presented
    evidence of their demand for the proposed railroad spur.             Even the
    Mayeuxs’ expert witness conceded that there was a public demand
    during his testimony.      The district court decided that Illinois
    Central had proven the existence of the requisite public demand for
    this project.
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion
    should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
    circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    1
    Illinois Central v. Mayeux, 
    301 F.3d 359
    (5th Cir. 2002).
    2
    The Mayeuxs challenge the district court’s decision on two
    grounds. First, the Mayeuxs claim that the district court deviated
    from this court’s mandate when it limited its examination to
    whether Illinois Central had established a public demand for the
    railway service track. Second, the Mayeuxs argue that the district
    court used an outdated standard for determining whether              such a
    public demand existed by relying on jurisprudence predating the
    1974 revisions to the Louisiana state Constitution.           We find that
    the district court faithfully followed our mandate, and we are
    precluded from reaching the Mayeuxs’ second argument.
    In the first decision on appeal, we recognized that the
    existence of a public demand for the railroad spur was a key aspect
    of the necessary purpose inquiry required for expropriation under
    Louisiana law.2     While there are other factors that go into the
    consideration of whether a proposed expropriation meets a necessary
    purpose,3    because   the   Mayeuxs    had    challenged    only   whether
    sufficient   public    demand   supported     the   expropriation   and   had
    presented expert testimony that conflicted with the railroad’s
    evidence on this point, we remanded the case to the district court
    to resolve that dispute.4        Specifically, this court found that
    2
    
    Id. at 367-68
    .
    3
    See 
    id.
    4
    See 
    id.
    3
    there was a genuine dispute as to but one issue of material fact,
    i.e. whether there was a public demand for the project, and
    therefore ordered the district court to try this single issue
    without further consideration of whether the other aspects of the
    necessary purpose inquiry, which had not been contested by the
    parties, had been met.5       As the mandate has issued in this court’s
    prior   decision,    any    consideration    of   the   finally   adjudicated
    aspects of necessary purpose would be improper at this point.6
    Thus, the issue before this panel is whether the district court
    erred    in   finding      that   there    was    public   demand    for    the
    expropriation.
    After reviewing the record in this case, the briefs and oral
    argument of the parties, as well as the district court’s reasons
    for its judgment, we conclude that the evidence fully supports the
    trial court’s decision on the public demand issue and its judgment
    of expropriation.       Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
    judgment in full.
    AFFIRMED
    5
    
    Id. at 368-69
    .
    6
    Patterson v. Shumate, 
    504 U.S. 753
    , 
    112 S. Ct. 2242
    , 119 L. Ed. 2d. 519
    (1992)(noting that one panel of the Fifth Circuit is bound by the precedent of
    previous panels absent an intervening Supreme Court or en banc decision); Martin
    v. Medtronic, Inc., 
    254 F.3d 573
    , 577 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Zuniga-
    Salinas, 
    945 F.2d 1302
    , 1306 (5th Cir. 2001).
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-30319

Judges: Benavides, Stewart, Dennis

Filed Date: 4/6/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024