Issues Involving Railroad Rights-of-Way in Virginia (Mostly) – Part Two

Article by R. Michael Smith

---

This is the second installment of a two-part article that is an expansion of the materials included in the VLTA seminar, The Sound and the Fury: Railroads, Rights-of-Way, and Revesting, and a 2017 Examiner article, Derailed by the Supreme Court. Some sections have remained the same, other sections have been enlarged, while the section on the Brandt case has been downsized and largely rewritten. The first part of the article covered a short economic and social history of railroads in Virginia, acquisition of a railroad’s right-of-way (ROW), formal abandonment of an acquisition today, and a review of Virginia’s participation in a quasi-public version of Rails-To-Trails. Read Issues Involving Railroad Rights-of-Way in Virginia (Mostly) – Part One here.

This second part focuses on the real estate interest held by the railroad in the ROW, what happens to the interest upon actual and/or legal abandonment of the ROW by the railroad, tort liability for grade crossing incidents, and suggestions for title underwriting with a ROW present. Also, in this part, a ten-year-old US Supreme Court decision, important in defining whether a ROW is a fee or an easement, will be reviewed. The case was expected to impact abandoned rail lines nationally, but its impact in Virginia will be slight. The overall effect of Brandt is, frankly, unknown. A clear result of the case, though, is that railroad property or property affected by a neighboring ROW requires a thorough title examination and intervention by professionals in the title industry.

Grade Crossings and Tort Liability

Railroad crossings across public or private lands create hazardous conditions that must be mitigated in order to accomplish the public purposes of the flow of commerce and exercise of the inherent right of free travel.  See, e.g., Va. Code § 33.2-903; Va. Code § 56-25; Va. Code § 56-365.1. The State Corporation Commission’s Division of Utility Safety is the government body responsible for regulation of the rail industry in the Commonwealth. In both investigating and deciding conflicting evidence from citizens, localities, and railway companies, the SCC acts as both a legislative and judicial body. Statutes and the Virginia Constitution give this unique position to the SCC in railroad matters. Norfolk and Western Railway Co. v. Tidewater Railway Co., 105 Va. 129, 52 S.E. 852 (1906); see also, City of Bristol v. Virginia and Southwestern Railway Company, etc., 200 Va. 617, 107 S.E.2d 473 (1959).

Regulation of traffic at grade crossings also appears in the Virginia Motor Vehicle Code. For example, a motor vehicle operator with a commercial license may be ‘disqualified’ from operating a commercial vehicle if convicted of offenses involving a grade crossing.  Va. Code § 46.2-341.20:1.  Also, a driver who passes another vehicle at a grade crossing “shall be guilty” of reckless driving.  Va. Code § 46.2-858.

 Virginia caselaw is replete with tort cases involving motor vehicle collisions with trains at grade crossings. While tort law is beyond this discussion, it is useful to note that landowners, whose land is the site of a private grade crossing, have no special liability to users of the private grade crossing merely due to ownership of the land. Common law tort principles of proximate cause, last clear chance, and contributory negligence (as modified by statute) are relevant to grade crossing collisions. While the railroad may have a greater degree of care to operate its intrinsically hazardous equipment upon the tracks in compliance with state safety laws, a motor vehicle operator does have a duty to exercise reasonable care and, specifically a duty to stop, look, and listen, at unmarked grade crossings, include private ones. The driver may still reach a jury verdict if he/she fails to exercise reasonable care, but, at minimum, contributory negligence by the driver will impact damages as a result of the collision. Illustrative cases on these points: Norfolk and Western Railway Company v. Epling, Administrator, etc., et. al., 189 Va. 551, 53 S.E.2d. 817 (1949); The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company v. Pulliam, 185 Va. 908, 41 S.E.2d 54 (1947).

The right to maintain and use a private grade crossing for a landowner is by easement. Even if the railroad only has a right-of-way upon the owner’s property, the owner has no implied right to cross over the ROW, even if the purpose of the crossing is to gain access to the other side of the tracks, which other side is also the owner’s property. Consequently, it is imperative for a landowner to obtain an easement to cross the right-of-way at the time the right-of-way is granted to the railroad. Doing so and recording the agreement in the land records will create a separate right in the landowner in the railroad’s fee or right-of-way through or beside the landowner’s property. The easement for the grade crossing should be specific as to obligations to construct and maintain. Having a recorded easement for the grade crossing allows the landowner to pursue a future injunction to maintain the crossing in the event that the railroad or a successor attempts to abandon the right-of-way. Caselaw indicates that the landowner probably does not have to show actual damages if a crossing is closed as the cases indicate that unilateral termination of an easement right by the servient estate (the railroad) is irreparable harm to the dominant estate (the landowner) as a threshold test for granting an injunction to maintain the easement (the grade crossing).  Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Breeden, 287 Va. 456, 756 S.E.2d 420 (2014).

One general observation that may be made about tort liability at grade crossings: The law is favorable to the railroad involved. So long as the train is being operated within promulgated safety and warning protocols, the railroad, as a defendant, will likely be found free of liability to the victim(s) of the collision.

The Railroad’s Interest in the Land

As stated in the first part of this article (Smith, R. Michael, Issues Involving Railroad Rights-of-Way in Virginia (Mostly), VLTA Examiner, Dec. 23, 2024, Issues Involving Railroad Rights-of-Way in Virginia (Mostly) – VLTA Examiner Publication), there is never a doubt that a railroad occupies land by the presence on the ground of its rails, water towers, signals, crossings, etc., and the thundering locomotives and clanking rail cars. This occupancy can be a license, easement, or fee interest depending on the language creating the use of the land by the railroad. First, there must be a determination by a government entity that the public needs a railroad ROW for the common good. The railroad can obtain the designated route thereafter by eminent domain or purchase from the sovereign or private landowner. The language of the conveyance document(s) defines the extent of the railroad’s ROW as a fee in the land or merely an easement. 

Consequently, the role of the title records searcher/examiner is paramount. First, the searcher must locate that original document of conveyance to the railroad – deed, grant, order of eminent domain. Most of those records date to the 1800s. In the Twentieth Century, transfers of existing ROWs frequently occurred by merger of railway lines or bankruptcy reorganization. Records of such transactions from the bankruptcy court or SCC are usually located in the same land records as the original deed of conveyance. Nevertheless, out conveyances, conveyances of lesser interests (e.g., a leasehold or other utility easement on the land affected by the ROW), or private easements for grade crossings may be seen on the land but not found among the land records.

Once found by a hyper-diligent title searcher, the recorded original conveyance to the railroad may be illegible due to deterioration of the records or their loss due to fire or war. Supplements to the land records may be found with the railroads themselves, but such records are not legally conclusive of a railroad’s rights without review and confirmation by a court of competent jurisdiction in a quiet title or declaratory judgment action involving the railroad.  [In a VLTA seminar in November 2017, Virginia’s premier title examiner, Doug Dewing, provided two useful websites for the history of railroad rights-of-way in Virginia for its leading rail carriers: CSX – https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-us/history-evolution/; Norfolk Southern – https://www.nscorp/en/the-norfolk-southern-story.html]

The importance of a professional and thorough title search/examination is highlighted in Valenzuela v. Union Pac. R. R. Co., (D.Ct.AZ, CV-15-01092-PHX-DGC, 2017). In that case, the essential issue was a procedural one: Whether or not a class action could be certified in the federal court by private landowners as representatives of a class of about 1100 landowners against a railroad and a pipeline company for trespass, unjust enrichment, quiet title, inverse condemnation, recovery of rents, and accounting, upon abandonment of the railroad’s ROW, but continuance of the gas pipeline easement under the ROW granted by Union Pacific, its predecessors or successors in interest. The Court’s Order quoted at length from an expert’s title opinion submitted by John H. Rall. The Order does not state whether Mr. Rall was an attorney or a licensed title insurance agent (with plant access) in Arizona. The Order recites verbatim from Mr. Rall’s expert opinion on five points in his title search and review of documents. The Court led into the quote with this language: “With apologies to the reader, the Court quotes the relevant but lengthy language from the Rall opinion because it aptly illustrates the complexity of the title inquiry required for just one parcel of property.” The defendants presented their own expert on title matters who disagreed with one or more of Mr. Rall’s conclusions. Ultimately, the Court decided not to certify the case as a class action under FRCP 23, because the claims for trespass, quiet title, or rents for each individual with a property interest affected by the ROW can succeed “only if the history of their real estate ownership shows that they actually own the subsurface where the pipeline is located.” In other words, fee title to railroad right-of-way surface lands upon abandonment by the railroad can only be determined by judicial action after a thorough study of title documents and physical facts on an individual, case-by-case basis.

Abandonment of the Railroad’s Interest as a Right-of-Way in the Land

The problem of ownership arises when abandonment of the ROW can be illustrated in fact when operations as a railroad have ceased, tracks have been removed, trees and underbrush has overgrown the ROW, and/or historic disrepair of rail facilities has continued, but no out conveyance or other form of divestment is found among the land records. A final judgment in a quiet title action would be needed to resolve an open question of fee ownership after an abandonment.

Virginia applies the common law principle that, upon abandonment of an easement by the dominant estate holder, title to the underlying soil vests in the servient estate holder unencumbered by the easement. Restatement of Property, Third, Servitudes, asserts this same principle. Railroad rights-of-way that were an easement only, upon abandonment by the railroad (dominant estate), will vest in the landowner free of the railroad’s rights. That is, in Virginia, a railroad right-of-way is just an easement without special residual rights to use of the ground in the future.

Evidence for finding abandonment has extensive jurisprudence in Virginia. Key in the caselaw is “abandonment” as shown by presence or lack of structures related to railroad purposes equates to release of the right-of-way as easement but not “abandonment” of the legal right to the land’s title. “While there is much evidence tending to show an abandonment of the easement, there is little, if any, tending to show an abandonment of the title to the rails.”  Talley v. Drumheller, 143 Va. 439, 448, 130 S.E. 385 (1925). Lack of railroad activity and removal of tracks can be evidence sufficient to sustain a claim of adverse possession against a railroad by a private landowner/user of the ROW land (so long as the other legal requirements for adverse possession are met).  Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co., Inc. v. Great Falls Power Co., 129 S.E. 731 (1925). Failure to maintain the easement area “for an unreasonable length of time” is evidence that the holder of the right is acting inconsistently with an intent to reserve “the future enjoyment of the right” and can be held to be an abandonment of the right or interest in the land. 

Oney v. West Buena Vista Land Co., 104 Va. 580, 52 S.E. 343, 345 (1905). Note that intent to abandon a lease of railroad ROW facilities or operations by a lessee may be enjoined by the lessor/holder of the ROW rights in order to prevent a scenario that could be challenged as an abandonment of the interest in the land by the lessor/holder in a third party’s action.  Southern Ry. Co. v. Franklin & P. R. Co., 96 Va. 693, 32 S.E. 485 (1899).

Underwriting Title Insurance with a Railroad Interest Present

The presence of a railroad in a title search, whether an active railway or not, should be called out by the examiner. An underwriter should except to the railroad in title commitment and policy. Removal of the Exception should be made by senior underwriters or by your title insurance company’s underwriters. Language for these Exceptions is broad. These are ALTA recommendations from the 2008 draft of Standard Exceptions:

Railroads

    Exceptions

                                RROX01               Railroad Easement (No Recording Data)

                                                                                Rights-of-way for railroad, switch tracks, spur tracks, railway facilities and other related easements, if any, on and across the Land.

                                RROX02               Railroad Easement (Shown on Survey)

                                                                                Rights-of-way for railroad, switch tracks, spur tracks, railway facilities and other related easements, if any, on and across the Land along the _________ portion of the Land as shown on survey dated ___________ by _____________.

                                RROX03               Railroad Easement (Recorded)

                                                                                Rights-of-way for railroad, switch tracks, spur tracks, railway facilities and other related easements, if any, on and across the Land along the ___________ portion of the Land recorded _____________.

ALTA’s Title Forms Committee considered revising the Standard Exceptions in connection with the ALTA 2021 policy forms rollout, but further discussion was tabled. The need for change was not established. Eventually, with affirmation from the ALTA Board of Directors, the Title Forms Committee dropped the subject. The consensus was that the language of Exceptions varied too much among underwriters and from state to state to make such a project a practical impossibility. Underwriters are left to make their own choices for Exceptions to make on all issues, including railroad rights-of-way.

Common practice in the title insurance industry is to treat all cases involving a railroad right-of-way as an extra hazardous insurance risk situation requiring intervention and review by the title company underwriting the title insurance policy. An agent should be prepared to take Exception to any recorded instrument referencing a railroad in the chain of title, including documents such as plats or surveys that show an ROW adjacent to the subject Land. If a transaction directly involves the title to property held or once held by a railroad, the required title examination period will be expanded to the original document that originally created the railroad title and right-of-way. Such title exams will necessarily take more time, be more expensive, and should only be undertaken by highly qualified commercial title examiners.  [Recommendation: Seek out the services of a holder of the VLTA’s Certified Title Examiner status.]  These are searches that will not be aided by artificial intelligence or virtual search products that can produce minimal risk products for essentially static title chains (e.g., a 40-year-old residential subdivision).

All documents that affect the railroad’s ROW should be copied in full and forwarded to underwriting counsel to review. If title insurance is sought for property that has abandonment of the ROW as an issue, anticipate further requirements from your underwriter, such as, quitclaim deeds, indemnities, special Exceptions to coverage, etc. Title might only be insured after an action to quiet title is resolved.

Cullen M. Marshall, at the time an underwriting counsel for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, delivered a title insurance webinar on underwriting with a railroad issue. The material presented is an effective primer on the topic. The webinar slides can be found at Marshall, Cullen M., Railroads and Title Insurance, ALTA Title School 2020 (2020), Railroads-Title-School-2020.pdf, retrieved 6/11/2025.

Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States and Conclusions

On March 10, 2014, the United States Supreme Court decided Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, 572 U.S. 93, 134 S.Ct. 1257, 188 L.Ed.2d 272, 82 USLW 4187 (2014). The decision reversed a ruling of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of the United States and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the decision in favor of a private citizen landowner. The case was not a ruling on a major current social or constitutional issue, but a simple decision of statutory and common law on property rights. It raised (or settled) questions of title to the fee in the bed of railroad rights-of-way across federal lands, particularly in the West. The case triggered concerns of many public interest groups, resulting in nearly a dozen amici on each side of the appeal (including the American Land Title Association on behalf of the landowner). The decision had an adverse impact on the popular rails-to-trails program. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion, an 8-1 decision, with only Justice Sotomayor dissenting. The Chief Justice outlined the case and the issues succinctly in his opening paragraph:

In the mid-19th century, Congress began granting private railroad companies rights of way over public lands to encourage the settlement and development of the West. Many of those same public lands were later conveyed by the Government to homesteaders and other settlers, with the lands continuing to be subject to the railroads’ rights of way. The settlers and their successors remained, but many of the railroads did not. This case presents the question of what happens to a railroad’s right of way granted under a particular statute — the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 — when the railroad abandons it: does it go to the Government, or to the private party who acquired the land underlying the right of way? Brandt, 572 U.S. 95.

Ultimately, the Court held that, without limiting language in the original patent creating a residual fee in the United States, Congress intended that fee in the land grants was to be sold to individuals, and that the railroad would only receive a right-of-way for railroad purposes. Since the legislation was silent as to the issue of abandonment of the ROW in the title chain of a private landowner’s property affected by the railroad, the Supreme Court applied the common law principle that the title in the soil above and below the ROW defaulted to the adjacent landowner.

Ironically, the Court resolved Brandt by grabbing dictum from an earlier decision, which dictum was derived from an argument advanced by the United States. In Great Northern Railway Co. v. United States, 315 U.S. 262, 62 S.Ct. 529, 86 L.Ed. 836 (1942), held that the railroad did not have the right to exploit minerals below the surface of its right-of-way. Great Northern was granted its ROW pursuant to the 1875 Act. Part of the argument of the government was that the railroad did not own the subsurface because its surface rights were only to use the land as an easement. That is, there was no “easement plus” interest held by the railroad, in which extended interest the U.S. might have a reversionary interest.

Ultimately, the holding of the Court in Brandt can be said to be a desire to settle land titles that came out of abandoned railroad rights-of-way. The desire to settle land titles is a basic premise of property law in the United States. In confirming Great Northern on the concept that the railroad’s interest under the 1875 Act was an easement only, the Court was sustaining the common law on abandonments. The last word from the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts (8-1 decision) was this: “Now the Government argues that such a right of way is tantamount to a limited fee with an implied reversionary interest. We decline to endorse such a stark change in position, especially given ‘the special need for certainty and predictability where land titles are concerned.’ Leo Sheep Co., 440 U.S. 668, 687, 99 S.Ct. 1403, 59 L.Ed.2d 677 (1979).”

The reliance by the Court on the certainty of land titles and respect for the work of title examiners cannot be understated. The Supreme Court overcame significant public policy issues to arrive at the decision supporting the property rights of individual citizens. Among these considerations was the potential cost to the government of reacquiring rights in the land to provide public services not related to railroad purposes (e.g., conservation, rails-to-trails). The greater public good was held to be the certainty of land titles and the common law principle that “Once an easement, always an easement.” 

Much more on Brandt has been written, including a previous article in the VLTA Examiner.  Smith, R. Michael, Derailed by the Supreme Court: (Some) Railroad Rights-of-Way Are Just an Easement, VLTA Examiner, March 1, 2018, Derailed by the Supreme Court – VLTA Examiner Publication. See the appended bibliography for further reading.

Evidence since the Brandt decision (or lack thereof) suggests that the issue of cost to the government has not been as great as feared. The U. S. Dept. of the Interior’s website reveals no data on inverse condemnation actions nor information on large scale government eminent domain proceedings to reacquire fee or easement rights in abandoned railroad rights-of-way. The takeaway is that the government determined that the cheapest way to proceed after Brandt was to wait for private landowners to act to settle their titles by deed or action to quiet title. If an abandoned railroad, originally conveyed under the 1875 Act, was needed by the United States, it could still seek a quitclaim from the adjacent landowner to purchase rights or initiate an eminent domain action. Further, the concern that massive class actions by landowners for recovery of rents or profits for the use of their lands prior to Brandt was effectively tabled in Valenzuela v. Union Pacific Railroad Company referenced above. Valenzuela confirms that the title chain to each parcel of land is unique and not susceptible to resolution fairly in an amalgamation of landowners’ claims despite the supposed efficiency and cost savings of one case instead of multiple adjudications.

Railroad rights-of-way will remain an issue for title examiners and title insurers. While Brandt seemingly resolves the fee in the bed of abandoned railways granted by the United States under the 1875 Act, it does not resolve the threshold question of whom the purported owner of the adjacent land is. The rails-to-trails story here will be the train (sic) documents and facts researched and produced by qualified, specialized title examiners and underwriters.

---

Materials for Additional Reading

Related to Abandonment (Virginia):

Bailey v. Town of Smallville, 691 S.E.2d 491 (2010).

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Co., Inc. v. Great Falls Power Co., 129 S.E. 731 (Special Ct. App. 1925).

King v. Norfolk & Western Railway Company, 90 Va. 210, 17 S.E. 868 (1893).

King v. Norfolk & Western Railway Company, 99 Va. 625, 39 S.E. 701 (1901).

Norfolk & Western Railway Company v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 143 Va. 106, 129 S.E. 324 (1925).

Oney v. West Buena Vista Land Co., 104 Va. 580, 52 S.E. 343 (1905).

Southern Railway. Co. v. Franklin & Pittsylvania Railroad Co., 96 Va. 693, 32 S.E. 485 (1899).

Talley v. Drumheller, 143 Va. 439 (1925).

Washington and Old Dominion Users Assn. v. Washington and Old Dominion Railroad, 208 Va. 1, 155 S.E.2d 322 (1967).

Related to Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States:

          Articles and Similar

Hess, Kris, Railroad Corridors After Brandt et al v. United States: Who owns land within the “right-of-way” after the railroad has left? Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, Webinar, railroad-corridors-brandt-decision.pdf, retrieved 6/11/2025.

Hodges, Brian T., Brandt v. US: Should the Common Law of Property Be Scrapped?, JURIST – Hotline, Nov. 1, 2013, http://jurist.org/hotline/2013/11/brian-hodges-rail-to-trail.php.

Hodges, Brian T., When the Common Law Runs into the Constitution: The Train Wreck Avoided in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States,

39 Vt.L.Rev. 673 (2015).

Smith, R. Michael, Derailed by the Supreme Court: (Some) Railroad Rights-of-Way Are Just an Easement, VLTA Examiner, March 1, 2018, Derailed by the Supreme Court – VLTA Examiner Publication.

Thayer, Kayla L., The 1875 General Railway Right of Way Act and Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States: Is This the End of the Line?,

47 U.Pac.L.Rev. 75 (2017).

Wright, Danaya C., A New Era of Lavish Land Grants: Taking Public Property for Private Use and Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, ABA Probate & Property Magazine, Vol. 28, No. 05, 2014.

Primed for Preemption: Eminent Domain of Railroad Property under the ICCTA, Gallivan White Boyd blog, 2024, https://gwblawfirm.com.

SCOTUS Benchslap: Railroad Right of Way Is an Easement, Just Like We Said a Long Time Ago, IC.com SWAG, March 10, 2014, http://www.inversecondemnation.com.

Supreme Court Ruling Represents Major Shift for Railroad Rights of Way, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck blog, March 14, 2014, www.bhfs.com.

          Caselaw

Alaska Railroad Corp. v. Flying Crown Subdivision, etc., No. 3:20-ev-00232-JMK (D. Alaska 2022).

Baharona v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 881 F.3d 1122 (9^th Cir. 2018).

Brandt v. United States, 710 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Estate of Finnigan v. United States, CV 18-109-M-DLC-KLD (D. Mont. 2019).

Great Northern Railway Co. v. United States, 315 U.S. 262, 62 S.Ct. 529,

86 L.Ed. 836 (1942).

LKL Associates, Inc. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, No. 18-4123 and

No. 18-4130 (10^th Cir. 11/10/2021), Doc. 010110602990.

Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, 572 U.S. 93, 134 S.Ct. 1257, 188 L.Ed.2d 272, 82 USLW 4187 (2014).

Pacific Imperial Railroad, Inc. v. Fletcher, Bkcy. No. 16-06253-LT11,

Adv. No. 17-90161-LT (Bkcy. D. Cal. 7/23/2018).

Samuel C. Johnson 1988 Trust v. Bayfield County, Wisconsin, 649 F.3d 799

(7^th Cir.  2011).

Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Ameriton Properties, Inc., 448 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. App. 2014).

Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc.,                   231 Cal.App.4^th 134, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 173 (2014).

Valenzuela v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, No. CV-15-01092-PHX-DGC

(D. Ariz. 2017).

Related to Title Insurance Underwriting with Railroad Interests:

Dewing, Douglass, Finding Your Way: A Railroad Family History, VLTA Examiner, April 3, 2018, Finding Your Way – VLTA Examiner Publication.

Marshall, Cullen M., Railroads and Title Insurance, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company/ALTA Title School 2020, Webinar 1/31/2020, Railroads-Title-School-2020.pdf, retrieved 6/11/2025.

Portwood, Brian, Defining the True Title Status of Railroad Right-of-Way in the American West – A Review of the California Position Announced              November 5, 2014, Professional Land Surveyors of Colorado, Inc., Article_for_publication_by_Westfed-on_web.pdf, retrieved June 12, 2025.

Smith, R. Michael, Issues Involving Railroad Rights-of-Way in Virginia (Mostly), VLTA Examiner, Dec. 23, 2024, Issues Involving Railroad Rights-of-Way in Virginia (Mostly) – VLTA Examiner Publication.

Related to Virginia Grade Crossings and Tort Liability:

City of Bristol v. Virginia and Southwestern Railway Company, 200 Va. 617,

107 S.E.2d 473 (1959).

Forest View Land Co., Inc. v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 120 Va. 308,

91 S.E. 198 (1917).

Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Charles F. Epling, Administrator, 189 Va. 551, 53 S.E.2d 817 (1949).

Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Tidewater Railway Co., 105 Va. 129, 52 S.E. 852 (1906).

Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. E. A. Breeden, Inc., 287 Va. 456,

756 S.E.2d 420 (2014).

Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company v Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, 197 Va. 130, 87 S.E.2d 799 (1955).

Southern Railway Company v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 159 Va. 779,

167 S.E.2d 578 (1933).

Southern Railway Company v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 206 Va. 831,

147 S.E.2d 72 (1966).

The Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company v. Pulliam, 185 Va. 908,

41 S.E.2d 54 (1947).

The Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 195 Va. 538, 79 S.E.,2d 607 (1954).

Related to Virginia Rails-to-Trails:

Va. Code § 10.1-202. Gifts, funds, and fees designated for state parks; establishment of funds.

Anne, Shellie, 9 Great Rail Trails in Virginia, Virginia Dept. of Conservation and Recreation – Blog, March 25, 2021, 9 Great Rail Trails in Virginia, retrieved June 13, 2025.

Kapp, Amy, Top Ten Trails in Virginia, Rails to Trails Conservancy – Trail Blog, April 20, 2021, Top 10 Trails in Virginia – Rails to Trails Conservancy | Rails to Trails Conservancy, Retrieved June 13, 2025.

---