Illinois Ctrl RR Co v. Mayeux, et al

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 6, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 03-30319
ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
JAMES E. MAYEUX; ET AL.,
Defendants,
JAMES E. MAYEUX; BARBARA R. MAYEUX,
Defendants-Appellants.
JAMES E. MAYEUX and BARBARA RICHARD MAYEUX,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS
ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD,
Defendant-Appellee.
BARBARA RICHARD MAYEUX; ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
BARBARA RICHARD MAYEUX; JAMES E. MAYEUX, JR.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

-- 1 of 4 --

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
1Illinois Central v. Mayeux, 301 F.3d 359(5th Cir. 2002).
2
VERSUS
ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Louisiana
(99-CV-678)
Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This is the second appeal in this case. In the first appeal,
we reversed the district court’s partial summary judgment in favor
of Illinois Central and remanded for trial upon a single issue of
disputed fact regarding whether Illinois Central could prove that
there was a public demand for its proposed expropriation.1 On
remand, the district court held a bench trial that included two
full days of testimony in which numerous shippers presented
evidence of their demand for the proposed railroad spur. Even the
Mayeuxs’ expert witness conceded that there was a public demand
during his testimony. The district court decided that Illinois
Central had proven the existence of the requisite public demand for
this project.

-- 2 of 4 --

2Id. at 367-68.
3See id.
4See id.
3
The Mayeuxs challenge the district court’s decision on two
grounds. First, the Mayeuxs claim that the district court deviated
from this court’s mandate when it limited its examination to
whether Illinois Central had established a public demand for the
railway service track. Second, the Mayeuxs argue that the district
court used an outdated standard for determining whether such a
public demand existed by relying on jurisprudence predating the
1974 revisions to the Louisiana state Constitution. We find that
the district court faithfully followed our mandate, and we are
precluded from reaching the Mayeuxs’ second argument.
In the first decision on appeal, we recognized that the
existence of a public demand for the railroad spur was a key aspect
of the necessary purpose inquiry required for expropriation under
Louisiana law.2 While there are other factors that go into the
consideration of whether a proposed expropriation meets a necessary
purpose,3 because the Mayeuxs had challenged only whether
sufficient public demand supported the expropriation and had
presented expert testimony that conflicted with the railroad’s
evidence on this point, we remanded the case to the district court
to resolve that dispute.4 Specifically, this court found that

-- 3 of 4 --

5Id. at 368-69.
6Patterson v. Shumate, 504 U.S. 753, 112 S. Ct. 2242, 119 L. Ed. 2d. 519
(1992)(noting that one panel of the Fifth Circuit is bound by the precedent of
previous panels absent an intervening Supreme Court or en banc decision); Martin
v. Medtronic, Inc., 254 F.3d 573, 577 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Zuniga-
Salinas, 945 F.2d 1302, 1306 (5th Cir. 2001).
4
there was a genuine dispute as to but one issue of material fact,
i.e. whether there was a public demand for the project, and
therefore ordered the district court to try this single issue
without further consideration of whether the other aspects of the
necessary purpose inquiry, which had not been contested by the
parties, had been met.5 As the mandate has issued in this court’s
prior decision, any consideration of the finally adjudicated
aspects of necessary purpose would be improper at this point.6
Thus, the issue before this panel is whether the district court
erred in finding that there was public demand for the
expropriation.
After reviewing the record in this case, the briefs and oral
argument of the parties, as well as the district court’s reasons
for its judgment, we conclude that the evidence fully supports the
trial court’s decision on the public demand issue and its judgment
of expropriation. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
judgment in full.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --