everything along the card or the overstatement which was that the only thing the court of federal claims relied on was the amount of compensation i don't think that's quite right well that's i'm sorry i just meant that the court that was the only thing that distinguish between that the c s c took into consideration was the different meaning of the phrase right of way yes the title of these deeds says a right of way but there is no reason to think that that title mean conveyed it's just describing the purpose of the transfer under subtle georgia law an indication of the intended use of real estate that's being transferred is not an express argument is that it wasn't reasonable for the court of federal claims to interpret that to include the land and your nd argument was that deposition testimony and other evidence demonstrate that intended to abandon this portion of the railroad line i would like to ask you some questions about your nd point just because there's not a lot of detail on this in your group and so i want to make sure i understand the facts correctly so n the st one i actually probably occurred in in their statement a related cases under rule forty seven five where they fail to even mention the jackson the united states case  railroad and under a long line of cases from the georgia supreme court that amounts to a grant as an easement and then also they fail to include the language in the deeds where they describe the fact that the grants were along the line of the recent survey through my lands thereby attempting to ignore that the d's were obtained for limited railroad purposes under georgia's construct controlling on that issue after totally ignoring the governing statute in their opening brief when the government totally misinterpreted the issue in their reply agree the important provisions of georgia's controlling statute which is set out in our grief in detail aid in the construction of the railroad right of way under the statute the railroad could hold and use the right of way as may be necessary for the railroad operation which is basically to accept such voluntary grants of real estate to aid in the construction of the railroad and those voluntary grants under the statute could be used and retained by the railroad for the purpose of such grants only which was railroad purposes in other words under these all of these deeds and under george's rules of construction these attendant circumstances are necessary for the court to  railroad surveys the land and if they hit a ball and cary grant from the landowner which is basically defined as nominal consideration is the word pointed out most if not all of these deeds are one dollar and some five and some are ten that's a definitely a voluntary grant because it's a minimal consideration under the law so the statute lays out the exact circumstances that were present at the time the form dee granted to the railroad and frankly under authority from this court in presoak to in the georgia supreme court in several cases those circumstances must be taken into consideration now although the georgia statute does not obviate the fundamental obligation of the court to examine the language of the deeds like a judge we did in detail the court should and did give it significant weight and it's telling that the government  what happened here is the government's argument is based on whether or not they actually intended to abandon that portion east of my post sixty five point  eight and the fact of the matter is they absolutely intended to bandon it up until the time that the corrected need to was filed and the reason is is that in all of the documents or misstatement in the parent that a colon included on the map that that same mistake was made in the original request to abandon so what's your point of view that the because it was included in the request to request where they filed their original petition for exemption with the surface transportation board requesting to abandon all that line to the two ma marker sixty five eighty at that point were  brief says you know i asked the rhetorical question what would have occurred if the government had not acted to file an amended need to do enough and the fact of the matter is it would have either been nd need to get corrected the situation counsel what about the deposition testimony there's thirty six deposition testimony in the records from carter pereiro that says that she c g a least this taking at the time the need to was issued but that's the standing mod in the federal circuit right now and so the government is basically attempting a collateral attack on all of that precedent to say that the need to cannot the need to was issued irrespective of whether it also only turns out to be temporary or not version interest that would otherwise take a fact that the taking of curse i'm quoting from the case now a th amendment taking if any under the trails that is accomplished when it needs to is issued and state exact facts where women need to is issued it interferes with state law reversionary rights on the days that the need to is issued and that's why the taking occurs at that time whether they actually consummates federal law abandonment at that time or not and that's the reverse that's the blocking of the state law reversionary rights that occurs when the need to is issue twenty one it was the grants of one hundred feet and with the right of way conveyed to the easement and most importantly the the court pointed out that the use of right a boy was not merely descriptive in that sense at all and that is one of the arguments the government keeps making here where they say it's not only a grant of land which is an incomplete statement obviously just looking at the deeds but it's also used  the government relies on bill da still repeatedly a dozen times or more in their brief because bell das there was a grant of land and in that was later described as a railroad right of way and this is a great it's a strip of land for a railroad right of way where it's not descriptive at all and in fact in rogers v pitchford valdosta was specifically distinguished not a state and a good road at all but was instead a granted pursuant to a limited access highway act which is like gaining access to a federal highway or a federal another federal circuit president described i'm not i don't think we need to get into whether opposing counsel correctly describes that president but even under all that such a day as it actually is there's nothing here that could have constituted a physical taking there was no and physical invasion and there was no abandonment that could have been thwarted turning to the deed issue  the robbers and the woods caves we think are the most similar cases that you should focus on and they absolutely reply the idea that that planets are pushing here that a r it's clear that the intended use is for a real court or now the big difference in the the long list of cases that plaintiffs are relying on here is that rail company like like the deeds or here in ask you they have reserving the right to cross and cool bait and there's a statement that if work is not commenced in two years the property will revert and there's no warranty we don't have a reservation here we don't have that kind of reversion cost here and we do have a warranty in the store old case again there is a reserve right to cultivate the land and the railroad is required to keep up stock that these days contain any of those types of explicit reservations or affirmative requirements that would be inconsistent with the grant of c therefore the purported grant of a strip of land must be a gran