of potential class members provided appears overbroad, as it identifies parties who allegedly own land adjacent to the Thornton Industrial Lead, without regard for the nature of the parties’ interest in the property. Id. at 7. Under Iowa law, simply owning property adjacent to a railroad right-of-way is not sufficient to establish the requisite reversionary interest necessary to sustain a takings claim: “To establish a compensable interest in a railroad line under Iowa law, Plaintiffs must prove either: (1) that each held some enforceable reversionary or executory interest in the railroad line; or (2) that each holds title to land adjacent to an abandoned portion of a railroad line that the operator used under a mere easement.” Id. (citing Jacobs v. Miller, 253 Iowa 213, 111 N 985) (<HOLDING>). In short, there is no presumption, as a
holding that the commission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying a rulemaking petition because it considered several factors to determine whether an amendment to the regulations was  appropriate or necessary such as the potential benefits of the requested amendment potential costs and the relation between the potential benefits and costs holding that an opinion of a potential danger to others is not sufficient to support a commitment under this standard holding 39 potential members was not sufficient holding 50 potential members was not sufficient holding that when ruling on a rule 50 motion the record should be taken as it existed when the trial was closed