TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company v. Oberly, III

The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, D/B/A One of the Chessie System Railroads the Baltimore and Philadelphia Railroad Company, D/B/A One of the Chessie System Railroads, Mount Clare Properties (Delaware), Inc and Chessie Motor Express, Inc. v. Charles M. Oberly, Iii, Attorney General of the State of Delaware and John E. Wilson, Iii, Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control of the State of Delaware. Appeal of Charles M. Oberly, III and John E. Wilson, III

Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Oberly, 782 F.2d 29 (3d Cir. 1986)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 27, 1986
Docket
No. 85-5272
Citations
782 F.2d 2916 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 2052624 ERC (BNA) 115124 ERC 11511986 U.S. App. LEXIS 21878

Opinion

782 F.2d 29 24 ERC 1151 , 16 Envtl. L. Rep. 20 ,526

The BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, d/b/a One of the Chessie System Railroads; the Baltimore and Philadelphia Railroad Company, d/b/a One of the Chessie System Railroads, Mount Clare Properties (Delaware), Inc; and Chessie Motor Express, Inc. v. Charles M. OBERLY, III, Attorney General of the State of Delaware and John E. Wilson, III, Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control of the State of Delaware. Appeal of Charles M. OBERLY, III and John E. Wilson, III.

No. 85-5272.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued Nov. 18, 1985. Decided Jan. 27, 1986.

William E. Manning (argued), David S. Swayze, Prickett, Jones, Elliott, Kristol & Schnee, Wilmington, Del., for appellees.

F. Henry Habicht, II, Asst. Atty. Gen., Land and Natural Resources Div., Lawrence R. Liebesman, Environmental Defense Section, Land and Natural Resources Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for EPA.

John J. Polk (argued), Deputy Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Wilmington, Del., for State of Delaware.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SLOVITER and MANSMANN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

1

In this appeal, we are presented with the question of whether the Delaware noise control statute and its regulations, as applied to activities at an interstate railroad facility, are preempted by the Federal Noise Control Act of 1972, even though the federal agency had not promulgated regulations to control noise emissions from railyard property lines, which included refrigerated rail cars and refrigerated trailers and containers (trailer on flat car/containers on flat car--TOFC/COFC). 7 Del.C. Sec. 7101 et seq.; Noise Control Act of 1972, Sec. 17, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4916 .

2

We hold that the application of the Delaware noise control statute to the interstate railroad facility in issue is preempted by the federal noise control statute for the reasons noted in Judge Stapleton's opinion. Baltimore and Ohio R. Co. v. Oberly, 606 F.Supp. 1340 (D.Del.1985). In addition, we note that, at our request, the General Counsel of the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") filed a memorandum of law addressing the EPA's views as to whether the Delaware statute is preempted. The EPA also agreed that section 17 of the Noise Control Act preempts the Delaware standard where EPA has adopted federal standards regulating noise from railroad facilities and, further, has considered and then declined to prescribe a federal property line standard for railroad facilities on the ground that it is unnecessary.

3

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1988: 219882026peak 1988 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company v. Oberly, III837 F.2d 108 (3d Cir. 1988)
  2. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Oberly837 F.2d 108 (3d Cir. 1988)

Most recent

  1. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company v. Oberly, III837 F.2d 108 (3d Cir. 1988)
  2. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Oberly837 F.2d 108 (3d Cir. 1988)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Oberly, 606 F. Supp. 1340 (D. Del. 1985) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list