With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". No State of Washington case has been identified which has considered whether railbanking is a railroad purpose, and no State of Washington case has cited to Troha. In fact, the State of Washington Supreme Court rejected the concept that a railroad easement could constitute a perpetual public easement under Washington law in Lawson v. State, 730 P.2d at 1313. Moreover, no federal court has relied on the holding in Troha that railbank-ing with interim trail use preserves future rail service. In fact, the only court to cite to the Troha decision is the United States Court of Federal Claims. For example, in a footnote in Raulerson v. United States, 99 Fed.Cl. 9, 12 n. 2 (2011), the court cited to Troha and stated: “But see Troha v. United States, 692 F.Supp.2d 550, 559-60 (W.D.Pa.2010) (<HOLDING>).” Raulerson v. United States, 99 Fed.Cl. at 12

A: holding that railbanking agreement precluded finding of abandonment
B: holding that removal for temporary employment with intent to return was not abandonment
C: holding that defendant failed to meet the burden of strict proof required to show abandonment
D: holding where challenge was waived that appellate review is precluded
A.