of the Lemmon Avenue Terminal gates, they are entitled to partial summary judgment: “The [WARAj’s mandate that Dallas demolish the passenger gates deprives [Love Terminal Partners] of its pre-existing property right to exclude others (including Dallas) from invading these gates to destroy them. The legislative deprivation of [plaintiffs’] right to exclude, without more, constitutes a taking.” Pls.’ Cross-Mot. 30. The physical taking issue turns on the court’s interpretation of the requirements arising under the WARA and is an issue of law that can be adjudicated on a motion for summary judgment. See Billings v. United States, 322 F.3d 1328, 1332 (Fed.Cir.2003) (“The underlying issue, one of statutory ... construction, is a question of law_”); Santa Fe Pac. R.R. Co., 294 F.3d at 1340 (<HOLDING>); see also Palmyra Pac. Seafoods, L.L.C., 561
holding that a judgment on appeal constitutes the law of the case as to particular issues decided and is applicable throughout subsequent stages of the case holding that constitutional questions will not be decided if case can be decided on other grounds holding that it may be decided as a matter of law holding that representation issues are matters relegated to the board representation issues may not be decided by contract and thus may not be decided by an arbitrator recognizing in a takings case that issues of statutory interpretation and other matters of law may be decided on motion for summary judgment