State v. BNSF Railway Co., 254 P.3d 561

1984 Settlement Agreement required BNSF to donate the Geraldine Line to the State and pay a short line per-car rate to a short line operator.
CMR was chosen as short line operator and entered into the 1986 Interchange Agreement with BNSF (per-car payments were provided).
CMR sued BNSF in 2005 for breach, tortious interference, and misrepresentation; CMR was later the State’s assignee for Section 9 rights of the 1984 Agreement.
BNSF sought to terminate the 1986 Agreement in 2007; arbitration compelled continuation of terms and then the 1986 Agreement was terminated by arbitration, with per-car payments replaced by a Rule 11 arrangement.
Multiple federal cases related to these agreements concluded that the 1984 and 1986 contracts interact but arbitration could proceed; the State filed this state-court action in November 2009 seeking declaratory and equitable relief.
The District Court granted a preliminary injunction in June 2010 prohibiting BNSF from terminating or refusing to enter into a new Appendix B-type agreement and from terminating a future interchange without notice and a showing of good cause; the State appeals the injunction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the injunction was proper to preserve the disputed terms	State contends ongoing rights under the 1984 Agreement require preserving the status quo.	BNSF argues the per-car payments were already terminated and no live obligations remain to be restrained.	Abuse of discretion; injunction improper as past actions cannot be enjoined.
Whether the district court exceeded the scope of relief requested	State asserts ongoing rights justify a remedy.	BNSF contends the relief requested is limited to ongoing per-car payments under the 1984 Agreement.	District Court erred by fashioning new terms and ordering specific performance beyond requested relief.
Whether there is ongoing enforceable obligation under the 1984 Agreement	State asserts rights and obligations remain intact.	BNSF argues the 1984/1986 framework has been terminated/arbitrated to a different arrangement.	Not appropriate; past injury resolved by arbitration; injunction not justified.

Mustang Holdings, LLC v. Zaveta, 333 Mont. 471, 143 P.3d 456 (Mont. 2006) (injunctions not available to remedies for past injuries; status quo limitations are key)
Bouma v. Bynum Irrigation District, 364 P.2d 47 (Mont. 1961) (injunction cannot remedy past injuries; must address ongoing threat to rights)
Sweet Grass Farms, Ltd. v. Board of County Commissioners, 2 P.3d 825 (Mont. 2000) (status quo and irreparable harm factors in preliminary injunctions)
Yockey v. Kearns Properties, LLC, 106 P.3d 1185 (Mont. 2005) (district court broad discretion in injunctive relief; abuse requires reversal)
City of Great Falls v. Forbes, 247 P.3d 1086 (Mont. 2011) (standard of review for injunctions and deference to district court rulings)