Footnotes

1006 E.g., United States v. 15.00 Acres of Land in Miss. Cty., 468 F. Supp. 310, 313 & n.6 (E.D. Ark. 1979); 2,175.86 Acres in Hardin & Jefferson, 687 F. Supp. at 1085-86.1007 E.g., 2,175.86 Acres in Hardin & Jefferson, 687 F. Supp. at 1085-87.

E.g. , Whitehurst , 337 F.3d at 770-72; see United States v. 24.48 Acres of Land , 812 F.2d 216, 218 (5th Cir. 1987).

E.g., Mont. Ry. Co. v. Warren, 137 U.S. 348 (1890); Mayflower Mines, 60 F.3d at 1477; Phillips v. United States, 243 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1957); Eagle Lake I, 141 F.2d at 564; see also United States v. 69.1 Acres (Sand Mountain), 942 F.2d 290, 292-94 (4th Cir. 1991) (highest and best use of holding sand reserves for future development based on “reasonable probability that the sand will be needed and wanted at a near enough point in the future to affect the current value of the property” (emphasis added)).

E.g., Oldfield, 660 F.2d 208; United States v. 1,629.6 Acres in Sussex Cty. (Island Farm II), 360 F. Supp. 147, 151-53 (D. Del. 1973), aff’d, 503 F.2d

Sand Mountain , 942 F. 2d at 292.

United States v. Land in Dry Bed of Rosamond Lake , 143 F. Supp. 314, 322 (S.D. Cal. 1956).

United States v. 33.92536 Acres (Piza-Blondet ), 585 F.3d 1, 7-8 (1st Cir. 2009).

Id .

Eagle Lake II , 160 F.2d at 184 n. 1.

United States v. 320 Acres of Land, 605 F.2d 762, 817 n.124 (5th Cir. 1979) (“To the extent that potential uses are inconsistent or incompatible uses, whatever value the land possesses because of its suitability for each of these uses cannot be aggregated in determining fair market value and just compensation.”); United States v. Carroll, 304 F.2d 300, 306 (4th Cir. 1962); Eagle Lake Improvement Co. v. United States (Eagle Lake II), 160 F.2d 182, 184 & n.1 (5th Cir. 1947) (“It becomes manifest . . . that separate valuation [of surface rights and mineral rights] . . . would bring about confusion and injustice in condemnation cases. . . . [S]eparate awards . . . might include valuation based…