1144 Rasmuson, 807 F.3d at 1346.1145 See United States v. 564.54 Acres of Land (Lutheran Synod), 441 U.S. 506, 513 (1979) (“This might be the case, for example, with respect to . . . roads or sewers.”); United States v. Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo Nav. Co., 338 U.S. 396, 402 (1949) (“At times, however, peculiar circumstances may make it impossible to determine a ‘market value.’ There may have been, for example, so few sales of similar property that we cannot predict with any assurance that the prices paid would have been repeated in the sale we postulate of the property taken. We then say that there is ‘no market’ for the property in question. But that does not put out of hand the bearing which the scattered sales may have on what an ordinary purchaser would have paid for the claimant’s property. We simply must be wary that we give these sparse sales less weight than we accord ‘market’ price, and take into consideration those special circumstances in other sales which would not have affected our hypothetical buyer. And it is here that other means of measuring value may have relevance—but only, of course, as bearing on what a prospective purchaser would have paid.”).