You're right superheater. However,one of the main players behind the lawsuit against the MOT in St. Louis has a strong attachment to THAT particular locomotive and no other. Therefore its become personal and there's little to no likelyhood that he'll quit until all ( and I mean ALL) legal avenues have been exhausted.

I can also report that very recently another attempt was made to arrange for a substantial donation to the MOT as an incentive to free the 952 and this was rejected. So, stubborness exists on both sides!!

Sad but true!!

Ross Rowland

A round of negotiations between VMT and MOT seems to pop up about every 5 years, with various people at the railroad supposedly involved. I'm really not sure what has been offered, and by whom. I did get Nick at IRM to give me a price on the 2050 a few years ago. Unfortunately, we didn't have any UP Big Boys lying around to trade........:)

Gary

If you're working deals, there's a big blue ALCo we'd love to put to work up here on the DL!

Dave Crosby

Not one of my engines. You'll have to talk to Bev about that one. However, I am directly involved with a small black Alco........:)

Thanks, Sloan. Do I read it correctly that the Lackawanna Chapter is the loser in this decision?? Seems clear that they are.

Perhaps someone with legal knowledge could advise what is the next level of appeal for the losing party? Does it go from here to the US Supreme Court or are there still more steps in between this level and the US Supreme Court??

Thanks, Ross Rowland

Can someone translate that to English?

Not a lawyer, but it sounds like somebody waited too long to assert their assertions, rendering their trying to do so moot. Nothing having to do with the meat of the assertions, just bureaucratic stuff.

dave

Just tell me if it's all finally [several expletives deleted] over, or I have to end up running away screaming again.

Disclaimer: Do not construe this post as a commer, official, unofficial, or otherwise by St. Louis County, the Museum of Transportation and the Transportation Museum Assocation. The opinions expressed here are my own.
To begin with, others, including, but not limited to Mr. Rowland, often question my credentials in dealing with this subject matter. I am a practicing attorney, licensed to appear in both Federal and State Courts in Missouri and Illinois. I have extensive litigation experience in both states, and even have jury trial experience. I live in St. Louis, and volunteer at MOT. I have not had any active involvement in the case, just commenting as a bystander. Unless one has some genuine legal questions, this will be my one and only comment on the matter. I write this to not attempt to engage anyone in a debate. This post is for education, and education only. Do not try to drag me into an argument. Okay, as much as I hate wading into this, here I go:

Short version-It's probaby over. For an explaination of the "probably" (and a good civics lesson to boot, read below). I charge upwards of $200 an hour for such analysis, and you are getting it free!

1. Options for Appeal

The loosing party, (The RL&HS Chapter) could ask for what is termed an en banc rehearing by the Court of Appeals. This case, as most appeals, was heard by 3-judge panel. There are 11 active judges on the Court. An en banc hearing would be in front of the full 11 judge active panel. An en banc rehearing is usually reserved for controversial issues, or opinions which were decided on a 2 to 1 basis. Such hearings are relatively rare. This is a per curium opinion, no dissent here. I seriously doubt the 8th Circuit would grant a rehearing.

If an hearing in front of the full court is denied, or if granted and the Chapter looses again, they can file for what is called a writ of certiorari which is a request that the United States Supreme Court hear the appeal. If granted, the Court sets a briefing schedule, and the parties eventually get to go to Washington. The Supreme Court, in most cases, has what is called discretionary jurisdiction. This means, the Court can pretty much pick and choose what it hears. If it refuses to hear something, the 8th Circuit’s ruling stands, the Chapter looses. Statistically speaking, without commenting on the merits of the case, chances of any appeal being heard by the Supreme Court are slim to none. In real numbers, on average, about 4,500 applications for a writ are made very year, with only about 200 cases ever being heard by the Supreme Court. Once again, this is a 1-2 page opinion, with no sharp division. Such an issue isn't controversial, Missouri’s law isn’t an outlier when it comes to statutes of limitations, the Circuit Courts of Appeal are not divided on the issue. In other words, this case has very little, if anything the Supreme Court looks for when it decides whether to hear a case.

That being said, anything can happen. One should remember, however, the litigation involving the L&N and the City of Chattanooga was not heard by the Supreme Court. In this case, if the Supreme Court refuses to hear the appeal, the case is over, MOT wins.

2. The law

Basically, the gist of The Chapter's argument is that they own the locomotive, and made a demand for its return. Their opinion is that the locomotive was on loan to MOT. Replevin is a fancy legal term for a legal action to return one's property that is in the possession of another. The trial court granted summary judgment, which is the court deciding the merits of the case based on the law, because St. Louis County successfully argued that the statute of limitations had expired by the time suit was filed. It was undisputed; even by the Chapter's own admission that they started to try to get the locomotive in 1995. In 1995 the museum refused, and as such, the clock started ticking on when suit could be filed. By the time the Chapter got around to filing a lawsuit in 2002, the statute of limitations had expired. Game over.

3. Analysis

Some will try to say that MOT won on a "technicality" which is untrue. If you want your stuff back, you have a certain amount of time under the law to institute legal action to get it back. Statutes of limitation exist to give people some predictability on when liabilities expire. If we didn't have them, just think of your museum's records retention policy (just one example). In short, if the Chapter wanted the 952 "back" then they shouldn't have sat around for seven years before filing suit. As early as 1995, they could have figured out that MOT wasn't going to give it up, even in trade, and they should have sought to protect their rights. We're not talking about someone making it to the courthouse a day late, either, so I have no sympathy for the Chapter.

Respectfully Yours,
David M. Wilkins

Thanks for the explanation.

Only thing I can say is I wish I had the money that has been spent on this over the years. I could pad out my IRA very nicely.
I'm glad it's over for all pratical purposes and hope it's put to sleep. Get a life!

After all this time the two groups bringing about the lawsuit have shown they exist almost solely to carry on this action. Recently the town of Delaware Water Gap has directly taken over the restoration effort of the Delaware Water Gap station, removing the Lackawanna Chapter, L&HS from the lead role. It is not clear if they have any remaining role in the project. The Friends of the New Jersey Transportation Museum has spent most of its existence moaning and groaning because politicians won't pay for a museum that of course they would be in charge of. After getting run out of Phillipsburg on a rail [pun intended] they then planned to take over a corn field ten miles away and recently they want in some way to set up shop at the former CNJ Terminal in Jersey City (and before you post and say I have it wrong then tell the Friends to stop sending out letters to historical groups in the state asking for their support to do this!).

At each stage where these guys lose we bemoan that the money could have been better spent on (fill in the blank), it is obvious that the backers have no interest in anything but this. As a side note the Form 990's for both of these groups don't seem to clearly indicate if they are funding these lawsuits - it would be a neat trick if people are giving tax deductible donations to pay for the lawyers.

Many thanks David for an excellent and easy ( for legal dummies like me) to understand explanation. I concur with your position also that the Chapter waited too long to pull the trigger and that's the rules of the game.

I can also tell you that knowing the players as I do there is an overwhelming probability that they will do everything possible to get this heard by the US Supreme Court, and as you said David, anythings possible.

My guess is to stay tuned, as this is almost certainly not yet over!

IMHO-Ross Rowland

It is really sad if what Ross says is true. These guys could be funding a lot of great projects with all of the cash spent on the lawsuit. It was one thing when MOT was a junkyard of rusting trains, a rescue may have been in order, but they have made major overall improvements and her care is much better.