Denver & Rio Grande R. Co. v. City and County of Denver
Headline: Denver ordinance to remove a railroad track at a busy depot intersection upheld, forcing the Rio Grande Company to relocate track and use other access while improving public safety.
Holding: The Court upheld Denver’s ordinance requiring removal of the track at Wynkoop and Seventeenth, finding the safety regulation was not an arbitrary violation of contract, due process, or the commerce clause.
- Requires Rio Grande to remove track at the Wynkoop/Seventeenth intersection.
- Causes some extra expense and delay for switching cars and modest lost revenue.
- Improves safety for depot users by removing a dangerous crossing.
Summary
Background
A railroad company (Rio Grande) sued after Denver passed an ordinance ordering the removal of part of its track where Wynkoop Street meets Seventeenth Street just outside the city’s union depot. That short stretch sits where about two thousand people and many vehicles pass daily. The company said the track was put in under an old city ordinance and amounted to a vested right, so removing it would violate its contract rights, harm its business, and interfere with commerce. The state supreme court directed the complaint dismissed, and the case came here for review.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether the city’s safety rule was an unreasonable or arbitrary interference with the railroad’s rights or with interstate commerce. The Justices assumed the track was originally authorized and that the company had a property interest, but emphasized that the city retains the power to adopt reasonable safety regulations. The Court found removal less burdensome than building a viaduct or tunnel and not plainly arbitrary. It also held the rule did not discriminate against interstate commerce and only affected it indirectly. The judgment upholding the ordinance was affirmed.
Real world impact
The ruling means the Rio Grande must remove the track segment and rely on other nearby tracks and the depot for access, causing some extra switching cost and modest revenue loss but improving safety for depot users. Any disputes about switching rates can be handled by public rate regulators.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?