Property Rights/Rails-to-Trails

Our firm’s rails-to-trails team has nearly 20 years of experience asserting property rights of landowners in litigation across the country involving land adjacent to an active railroad. In addition to our rails-to-trails team members, our bench is deep with seasoned lawyers who possess decades of experience in land-related and easement issues that can be drawn upon when warranted. The bottom line is, we ensure each and every one of our clients receive the attention and full and fair compensation that is due.

Our attorneys bring rails-to-trails cases against the federal government in the United States Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., pursuant to the "Just Compensation" Clause of the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution. The purpose of these lawsuits is to obtain money for landowners from the federal government, as compensation for land that was taken by the federal government. Specifically, those who own land adjoining a railroad that the federal government has authorized be converted to a trail, often have a claim for just compensation for the taking of their land. Our job is to enforce our clients’ Constitutional rights. 

American history has established the importance of land ownership, including the right to have private property that is not free for public use.  Therefore, when the public is allowed to use private land, we should all share in the cost rather than require that a landowner “donate” the land.  The cases we file seek only what is owed by virtue of the United States Constitution, and do not interfere with plans for a trail in any way.  The only defendant is the United States, no local government or party is involved as a defendant, although we do help local governments recover money due to them if they are also an abutting property owner.  We represent clients who like the trail and those who wish it were not there. Regardless of a property owner’s position on the trail, all property owners must make a claim in Court in order to receive any compensation.  We are only paid if our clients are paid and the United States pays all or a portion of any attorneys’ fees due.

We monitor rails-to-trails conversions in every state, which has led to our being involved in over 50 cases involving land in more than 15 states across the nation. Our cases often involve oral arguments in Washington, D.C., but trials generally occur in the locale where the land is located.

We have been very successful in proving landowners’ claims across the country, including in Indiana, Texas, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Washington, Tennessee, California, Michigan, New York, Arkansas, South Carolina, and other states, resulting in awards from hundreds of thousands of dollars to several millions of dollars.

We are honored to have been entrusted by hundreds of property owners to represent them in the below list of pending cases: 

• Anderson v. United States (Texas)
• Andrews v. United States (North Carolina)
• Bartusek v. United States (Iowa)
• Beaver v. United States (Indiana)
• Brown v. United States (North Carolina)
• Burnett v. United States (Missouri)
• Chickering v. United States (Iowa)
• Harley-White v. United States (Maine)
• Herron Development v. United States (Montana)
• Lewis v. United States (Maine)
• Martin v. United States (Alabama)
• Mills v. United States (Florida)
• Oak Hill Land Co. (Mississippi)
• Tomberlin v. United States (Alabama)
• Wagner v. United States (Michigan)
• Zinser v. United States (Indiana)

For more information about our rails-to-trails practice or to discuss a pending or prospective rails-to-trails claim, contact J. Robert Sears at 314.345.5000.

Attorneys

News

Challenging Venue and Timely Filing (Mar. 10, 2025)
Generative AI Ethics in Missouri and Beyond (Jan. 27, 2025)
Guidelines on Generative AI Ethics for Kansas and Other Midwest States (Jan. 27, 2025)
Exploring Generative AI Ethics in Illinois and the Broader Midwest (Jan. 27, 2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals Affirms Minority Owner's Personal Guaranty of Auto Dealership's Debt (Jan. 06, 2025)
Missouri's New Commercial Financing Disclosure Law And Its Impact On Small Businesses And Lenders (Sep. 12, 2024)
Right to Arbitration, Maybe Not. Courts Must Resolve Conflict of Arbitration Provisions when Parties Enter Multiple Contracts (Jul. 11, 2024)
Mortgage Industry Braces for Storm of Further CFPB Scrutiny (Jun. 18, 2024)
Supreme Court Declines Credit Card Companies' Request to Review Class Certification (Jun. 03, 2024)
Sanction of Dismissal with Prejudice Approved for Repeated Discovery Violations (May. 07, 2024)
Secured Creditors of Missouri Get Some Guidance and Good News from the Missouri Supreme Court (Oct. 07, 2022)
Timely Motion for Change of Judge Strips a Judge's Authority to Rule on Subsequent Motions (Jun. 22, 2022)
TRO Puts Illinois Judicial Circuit Redistricting to a Halt (Feb. 07, 2022)
The Pandemic Continues to Impact Kansas City Area Trials and Verdicts (Feb. 01, 2022)
Baker Sterchi Elects Five New Members in St. Louis and Kansas City (Jan. 04, 2022)
Second Update: Hopping On The Missouri Bandwagon? Not So Fast Out Of State Litigants. (Jul. 16, 2019)
Trails Group Resolves Numerous Cases Across the Country (Feb. 11, 2019)
City of St. Louis – Still A Judicial Hellhole (Dec. 26, 2018)
J. Robert Sears Serves on Panel at Court of Federal Claims Judicial Conference (Nov. 28, 2018)
Mere Designation of an Expert Witness Does Not Waive the Work Product Doctrine Protections (Nov. 02, 2016)
Baker Sterchi Sponsors U.S. Court of Claims Annual Judicial Conference (Nov. 19, 2012)