E.g. , United States v. Honolulu Plantation Co. , 182 F.2d 172, 179 (9th Cir. 1950) (“[S]trict proof of the loss in market value to the remaining parcel is obligatory.”); 26.07 Acres in Nassau , 126 F. Supp. at 377; see 760.807 Acres in Honolulu , 731 F.2d at 1448 (finding appraiser’s determination was “insufficient” without “market surveys or other data” that showed damages actually recognized in the market); United States v. 122.63 Acres of Land in Norfolk Cty. , 526 F. Supp. 539 (D. Mass. 1981) (declining to award damages for taking of easement where there was no proof of such damage); see also Weber , 99 F.3d 1140, 1996 WL 607162, at *4-6 (rejecting one appraiser’s finding of stigma damage where record was “devoid of evidence” showing such damage, and accepting another appraiser’s finding that no stigma damage existed based on comparison of similar properties and interviews of market participants involved with the purchase of similar property); Sharpe , 112 F. at 897.