Footnotes

United States v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 323 U.S. 373, 382 (1945).

See, e.g., id.

See United States v. 883.89 Acres of Land in Sebastian Cty. , 314 F. Supp. 238, 240-42 (W.D. Ark. 1970), aff’d , 442 F.2d 262, 264-65 (8th Cir. 1971); United States v. Michoud Indus. Facilities , 322 F.2d 698, 707 (5th Cir. 1963); United States v. 117,763 Acres of Land in Imperial Cty. , 410 F. Supp. 628, 631 (S.D. Cal. 1976), aff’d sub nom. United States v. Shewfelt Inv. Co. , 570 F.2d 290, 291-92 (9th Cir. 1977).

See, e.g. , GSA-VA St. Louis I , 2015 WL 4430134, at *10-*11 (“The market value of the property taken should be assessed uninfluenced by [the government’s] right to exercise its power of eminent domain in the future In the event of a future taking, [a landowner] may be assured

See United States v. 131,675 Rentable Square Feet of Space (GSA-VA St. Louis I), No. 4:14-cv-1077, slip op. at *10, 2015 WL 4430134 (E.D. Mo. July 20, 2015) (condemned leasehold interest contained no option to renew, holdover, or terminate early); see also 883.89 Acres in Sebastian, 442 F.2d at 265 (valuation properly reflected no value for renewal options because “[t]here was no evidence . . . that these options had any value”); United States v. Right to Use & Occupy 3.38 Acres in Alexandria, 484 F.2d 1140, 1145 (4th Cir. 1973) (no evidence of any difference in value whether renewal option required 30 or 90 days’ notice to exercise).

Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. United States, 147 F.2d 786, 789 (4th Cir. 1945).

Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States , 338 U.S. 1, 7 (1949); United States v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 323 U.S. 373, 382-83 (1945); United States v. Petty Motor Co. , 327 U.S. 372, 378-79 (1946); United States v. Banisadr Bldg. Joint Venture , 65 F.3d 374, 378 (4th Cir. 1995); Yuba Nat. Res., Inc. v. United States , 904 F.2d 1577, 1580-81 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

Id.

See, e.g., 883.89 Acres in Sebastian , 442 F.2d at 265.

See United States v. Bedford Assocs. , 548 F. Supp. 732, 743-45 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (considering whether property should be valued in ‘as is’ condition or whether determination of market rental price should include renovations), modified in other respects, 713 F.2d 895 (2d Cir. 1983); United States v. Flood Bldg. , 157 F. Supp. 438, 442-44 (N.D. Cal. 1957) (tenant alterations “did not wreak havoc and destruction to the interior” but rather made space “suitable for occupation by commercial type tenants, and owing to the excellent location of the building . . . its continuing utility can readily be perceived”).