States, Reading, and Amtrak on this issue are still outstanding. 10 . Conrail has now dropped its motion for summary judgment on the immunity portion of Count III. Conrad's Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment at 1. The summary judgment motions of the United States, Reading, and Amtrak on this issue are still outstanding. 11 . 45 U.S.C. § 562 et seq. 12 . 45 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. 13 . Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Penn Central Corporation, 533 F.Supp. 1351, 1353 (Sp.Ct. R.R.R.A.1982). 14 . Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company, 459 F.Supp. 1013, 1016-17 (Sp.Ct.R.R.R.A.1978) (outlining the legislative history of § 209(e)(2)). 15 . Penn Central Corporation v. U.S., 814 F.Supp. 1116, 1119-1121 (Sp.Ct.R.R.R.A. 1993) (<HOLDING>); Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Dicello, 121
holding that the court has jurisdiction to decide claims almost identical to those alleged here in conrails count i holding that the court of appeals has jurisdiction to decide its jurisdiction under the transitional rules of the iirira holding that district court has no jurisdiction to decide unauthorized second or successive  2255 claims holding that the court of federal claims had jurisdiction to decide an alleged due process violation related to his claim for damages under a moneymandating statute holding that juvenile court has no jurisdiction to consider constitutional claims