1. “Were the railroad purpose easements obtained by the railroad as ‘voluntary grants’ broad enough to permit railbanking and the construction of a hiking and biking trail under the Trails Act?” 2. “Did the CFC abuse its discretion by striking Plaintiffs’ third and fourth motions for summary judgment pertaining to the alternative path to liability based on state law abandonment (prong 3 of Preseault II) after the issue had already been presented to the CFC on two prior occasions and the CFC never ruled?”
1. “An overly broad reading of the voluntary grant statute would indeed be contrary to the legislative purpose behind the statute. . . . the easements granted to the railroad were not broad enough to encompass interim trail use or railbanking, and thus Fifth Amendment takings have occurred.”
2. “[T]hough we note that Behren’s failure to timely move for summary judgment cannot properly be viewed as a forfeiture of the abandonment theory which should have remained an issue in this case. Given our holding as to the scope of the easement, the abandonment claim is, however, moot.”
