OPRRMS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mook Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That is certainly related to the "main question"
> -
> > can SMART enforce a contract that says that the
> > way they want to interpret it? But it's not
> what
> > the 10/20 action was about - denying a
> preliminary
> > injunction because there's a workaround for the
> > immediate issue (the cars that aren't at
> > Schellville yet) doesn't imply any particular
> > answer regarding the contract itself. I
> wouldn't
> > be a bit surprised if STB eventually does go
> along
> > with SMART, but they have to think on it a bit
> > more to work out the precedents that could be
> > established.
>
> Then you and I must he reading completely
> different rulings.
>


I have to agree with Mook here. This is only a denial of the preliminary injunction NCRA/NWP filed against SMART to allow them to move the 12 cars at interchange and the 30 on their way. It is not a final ruling on the petition to transport and store the cars.


This quote from the linked document should help;

Based on the factual information presented in the pleadings and clarified on the conference calls, Petitioners have not met their burden to show that they will be irreparably harmed in the absence of a preliminary injunction pending a final Board determination in this proceeding.