Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Dowell

• 1912 • 229 U.S. 102 • White Court
In the case of Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Dowell in 1912, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and railway rights-of-way. The plaintiff, Dowell, owned a piece of land that was bisected by railroad tracks belonging to the defendant company. When he attempted to build a fence across these tracks for his livestock's safety, it was removed by the railway company who claimed an exclusive right-of-way through their charter granted by...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief White Court
Term: 1912
Docket: 208
229 U.S. 102
33 S. Ct. 684
57 L. Ed. 1090
1913 U.S. LEXIS 2426

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Dowell

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Dowell in 1912, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and railway rights-of-way. The plaintiff, Dowell, owned a piece of land that was bisected by railroad tracks belonging to the defendant company. When he attempted to build a fence across these tracks for his livestock's safety, it was removed by the railway company who claimed an exclusive right-of-way through their charter granted by Congress in 1850s. However, Dowell argued that this charter did not grant such exclusivity as it only allowed for construction and operation of railroads but didn't prevent others from using or crossing over those lands. The court sided with Dowell stating that while railways have certain privileges under federal law due to their public utility nature; they do not possess absolute control over all activities on their right-of-ways unless explicitly stated so in their charters or deeds. Therefore, property owners like Mr.Dowell retain some rights including building fences if necessary for protecting livestock even though it might interfere slightly with railway operations.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Dowell, it was argued that the court majority erred in its interpretation of Oklahoma's tax laws and their application to railway companies. The dissent contended that under state law, a railroad company should be assessed based on all property owned within the state - not just track mileage as determined by the majority ruling. It further suggested that this misinterpretation led to an unfair taxation burden placed upon local entities compared to corporations like railroads with extensive properties across multiple jurisdictions. Additionally, they disagreed with how evidence was handled during trial proceedings and believed there were procedural errors made which impacted fairness of judgment against Dowell’s claim for unjustly high taxes levied by Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company.

Opinion written by Justice HHLurton
Decided: May 26, 1913
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms