1. Analysis/Application
1.1. Intent of legislature
1.1.1. In Texas Code Construction Act, the word “operating” is used to determine if an entity is a railroad. Miles argues that this implies that a railroad must already be operating trains and tracks. Appeals Judge Longoria rejects this claim, under the basis that the legislators did not intend this law to only apply in the present tense. The appellants have done a lot of the work to make sure that they can operate a railroad in the future. The judge determines this was the legislatures intent (future use) and that is how law should be read.
1.1.2. Miles argues that the legislator did not intend to encompass modern high speed bullet trains as what would be built by this project. He further argues that since the Texas High Speed Rail Act (HSRA) was repealed this implies there is no needs for high speed rail. The transportation code makes no such distinction and importantly no new legislature has been passed to limit the technology per Judge Logoria.
1.2. Eminent domain and violation of Texas property codes
1.2.1. Miles argues that the TCR/ITL pursue imminent domain based solely on filed paperwork and without a hearing. The judge rejects this claim based on Miles did not pursue any investigation to prove otherwise. As such, precedent by the Supreme Court sets that if common carrier status can be determined by intention. TCR/ITL both meet these requirements for using eminent domain.
1.3. Interpretation of legislature
1.3.1. The appeals court deremines it is the place of the court to detemine the legislatures intent in interpreting laws. As such, judgement was primarily reveresed based on this interpretation. If the legislature is un happy with this, it is their reponsibility, to legislate and update/change laws. Another aspect is this leaves the door open for different views depends on who hears the case. In the first case, the judge sided with Miles, while in the appeal the 2nd judge sided with ITL/TCR. The facts mostly remained the same but depending on who herd the case, the results were vastly different.
2. Conclusion
2.1. Trial court judgment reversed
2.1.1. TCRI and ITL are determined to be railroad companies and interurban electric railways
2.1.2. Miles's motion for summary judgment
2.2. Judgments rendered
2.2.1. Appellants' (TCRI and ITL) partial summary judgment granted
2.2.2. Miles's motion for summary judgment denied
2.3. Issues remanded to trial court
2.3.1. Attorney's fees and court costs
2.3.2. Resolution of TCRI and ITL's remaining claims for injunctive relief
3. Impact on the parties
3.1. Miles Impact
3.1.1. 1. Loss of land/property ownership (-) 2. Monetary loss for court fees (-) 3. Loss of time (-)
3.2. TCRI and ITL
3.2.1. 1. Proceed to continue with $12 billion project. 2. Move forward with permitting process for current property owners 3. Enact eminent domain is required 4. Monetary loss for court (fees) 5. Continued investments from private stakeholders
3.3. Societal Impact
3.3.1. 1. (+) Will eventually obtain new railway which would help with: (a) Cost efficiency (b) Environmentally-friendly (c) Reliaible transportation (d) Create job opportunities 2. (-) Will relocate other local property owners due to eminent domain
4. Importance
4.1. Business
4.1.1. 1. Business growth possible as consumers have fast, reliable transportation from Dallas to Houston 2. Future companies able to refer to this case when determining whether they meet the definition for railroad and/or interurban electric railway company
4.2. Government
4.2.1. 1. James Fredrick Miles v. Texas Central Railroad and Integrated Texas Logistics, Inc. is currently on appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas 2. Ellis County and other counties along route who oppose high-speed rails filed amicus brief in support of challenge to project 3. Evaluation of laws over time ("Texas allows survey access to railroads, pipelines, electrical lines and other industries that provide for a public good and a strong economy")
4.3. General Public
4.3.1. 1. Public will benefit from the use of a high-speed electric-powered passenger train connecting Dallas and Houston in under 90 minutes 2. Expected that 10,000 jobs during each year of the construction process and 1,500 permanent jobs once operations begin will be created 2. Others affected by the Project (and other future projects) whose property is subject to pre-condemnation survey and/or eminent domain authority are more likely to face similar judgments as a result, "the best indicator of what the Legislature intended is what it enacted"
5. Issues
5.1. (1-2) the trial court erred in declaring that TCRI and ITL were not “railroad ” or “interurban electric railways”.
5.2. (3) the trial court erred in granting Miles’s summary judgment motion and denying appellants’ motion for partial summary judgment;
5.3. (4) if this Court reverses, attorney’s fees should also be reversed
6. Rule of Law
6.1. Interpretation of legislature. What defines a railroad company according to TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 81.002. Section 81.002
6.1.1. "a railroad incorporated before September 1, 2007, under former Title 112, Revised Statutes"
6.1.2. "any other legal entity operating a railroad, including an entity organized under the Texas Business Corporation Act or the Texas Corporation Law provisions of the Business Organizations Code."
6.2. Eminent Domain: “the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation.”
6.2.1. Common carrier: owns, operates, or manages, wholly or partially, pipelines for the transportation of carbon dioxide or hydrogen in whatever form to or for the public for hire, but only if such person files with the commission a written acceptance.
6.2.2. Corpus Christi Court of Appeals, “we are not interpreting the eminent domain authority, but rather we are interpreting Section 81.002(2)’s definition of a railroad company.”
6.2.3. Eminent Domain gives the government the right to acquire possession of real property in the manner directed by the "taking clause" in the US Constitution.
6.2.4. The power of eminent domain generally is evoked through condemnation proceedings. The government must prove that I need to acquire privately owned property for public use.
6.3. Interpretation of legislative intent
6.3.1. The legislatures intent is what the court should use when intepreting laws. Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Sys., Inc., 996 S.W.2d 864, 865 (Tex. 1999)
7. Facts
7.1. Parties
7.1.1. Appellants: Texas Central Railroad & Infrastructure, Inc. (TCRI) and Integrated Texas Logistics, Inc. (ITL) Appellee: James Frederick Miles
7.2. How They Ended up in Court
7.2.1. Appellee James Miles refused to grant permission to TCRI to survey his land, Miles sued TCRI for declaratory relief seeking a judgment that TCRI could not conduct the type of survey requested in the survey and compensation for attorney fees. Miles also argued that TCRI is not a railroad company, therefore does not have the right to conduct surveys and examinations.
7.2.2. Texas Central Railroad & Infrastructure, Inc. (TCRI) and Integrated Texas Logistics, Inc. (ITL) appealed the 2019 case on the behalf that they were in fact an operating railroad company and have the right to conduct surveys and examinations and to enforce eminent domain
7.3. Important Facts
7.3.1. December 20, 2012: TCRI Railroad was established
7.3.2. In 2015, TXHS Railroad, Inc. changed its name to TCRI with a purpose to “plan, build, maintain, and operate an interurban electric railroad.”
7.3.3. 2017: ITL was formed in part "to construct, acquire, maintain, or operate lines of electric railway."
7.3.4. In 2019, Appellee James Miles won his case against Texas Central Railroad & Infrastructure, Inc. (TCRI) and Integrated Texas Logistics, Inc. (ITL)
7.3.5. July 31, 2020: Texas Central Railroad & Infrastructure, Inc. (TCRI) and Integrated Texas Logistics, Inc. (ITL) filed a petition for appeal.
7.4. Procedural History of Case
7.4.1. 2019 Trial Court Case: In 2019, Appellee James Miles won his case against Texas Central Railroad & Infrastructure, Inc. (TCRI) and Integrated Texas Logistics, Inc. (ITL) on the fact that Texas Central “is not an operating railroad”. James Miles refused to TCRI the right to conduct surveys and examinations. Miles refused to sell his land to make way for the new railway system. In 2019, Miles stated that TCRI does not have “eminent domain” authority since they are not legally considered an operating railroad.