Footnotes

1134 See Caporal v. United States, 577 F.2d 113, 117-18 (10th Cir. 1978); Elsberry Drainage District, 563 F.2d at 359-60; Vill. of Stoutsville, 531 F.2d at887; United States v. City of New York, 168 F.2d 387, 389-90 (2d Cir. 1948); Woodville v. United States, 152 F.2d 735, 736-37 (10th Cir. 1946), cert.

1146 See Lutheran Synod, 441 U.S. at 513.1147 Toronto, Hamilton, 338 U.S. at 402; see, e.g., United States v. 3,727.91 Acres of Land (Elsberry Drainage District), 563 F.2d 357, 361-62 (8th Cir. 1977) (error to assume market value of levees and ditches could not be determined without comparable sales evidence and to disregard other evidence of market value).

1142 See, e.g., Rasmuson v. United States, 807 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (inverse taking of railway corridor converted to trail use). See Section4.11.3.2 for discussion of inverse takings claims regarding rails-to-trails conversions under the 1983 Amendments to the National Trails System Act. 1143 Rasmuson, 807 F.3d at 1346; United States v. 0.59 Acres of Land, 109 F.3d 1493, 1497 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding “the condition of condemned

1126 Fuller, 409 U.S. at 491-92. Congress has provided for administrative payments for losses due to cancellation of Taylor grazing permits for war purposes. See 43 U.S.C. § 315q (2012); United States v. Cox, 190 F.2d 293, 296 (10th Cir. 1951). But these administrative benefits created by statute are separate from compensation under the Fifth Amendment, and beyond the scope of the appraiser’s assignment to estimate market value. See United States v. Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co., 339 U.S. 261, 263-64, 264 n.2 (1950); United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373, 379- 80 (1945); United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U.S. 499, 510 (1945).“require suspension of the normal rules for determining just compensation.” 1127 Accordingly, compensation…

1140 Id.; see Naval Shipyard, 395 F.2d at 266-68.1141 Bos. Chamber of Commerce v. City of Boston, 217 U.S. 189, 195 (1910); see United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U.S. 53, 76 (1913) (“[T]here would be no justice in paying for a loss suffered by no one in fact.”); cf. Nebraska v. United States, 164 F.2d 866, 869 (8th Cir. 1947), cert. denied, 334 U.S. 815 (1948) (no compensation for “a diminution in the market value of the [landowner’s] rights through the creation of a leasehold, easement, or other interest in the land by the [landowner’s] own acts” preceding United States’ acquisition).

1130 United States v. Streets, Alleys & Pub. Ways in Vill. of Stoutsville, 531 F.2d 882, 887 (8th Cir. 1976).1131 E.g. , Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. United States , 147 F.2d 786, 788-89 (4th Cir. 1945) (“The fact is that the value of the land in the bed of the highway as land has been diminished by its devotion to a limited purpose.”); see United States v. 3,727.91 Acres of Land (Elsberry DrainageDistrict ), 563 F.2d 357, 359-60 (8th Cir. 1977) (“[When] the public condemnee has held only a right of way easement in a public street or

1148 Elsberry Drainage District, 563 F.2d at 361-62; California v. United States (Naval Shipyard), 395 F.2d 261, 264-67 (9th Cir. 1968); see Toronto, Hamilton, 338 U.S. at 402.

1141 Bos. Chamber of Commerce v. City of Boston, 217 U.S. 189, 195 (1910); see United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U.S. 53, 76 (1913) (“[T]here would be no justice in paying for a loss suffered by no one in fact.”); cf. Nebraska v. United States, 164 F.2d 866, 869 (8th Cir. 1947), cert. denied, 334 U.S. 815 (1948) (no compensation for “a diminution in the market value of the [landowner’s] rights through the creation of a leasehold, easement, or other interest in the land by the [landowner’s] own acts” preceding United States’ acquisition).1142 See, e.g., Rasmuson v. United States, 807 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (inverse taking of railway corridor converted to trail use). See Section

1114 E.g., United States v. Fort Smith River Dev. Corp., 349 F.2d 522, 525-26 (8th Cir. 1965) (reversing award that failed to consider special benefits due to United States’ revetment project that “manifestly” protected remainder land “from further reliction or erosion. That fact alone apparently places [the remainder] in a ‘better position’ because of the taking” and must be considered).1115 H.R. r ep. n o. 91-1665, at 31 (1970) (noting § 595a does not change federal law on offsetting special benefit to remainder “against the just compensation that would otherwise be paid for the real property taken and for damages to remaining real property”);United States v.

1113 River Rouge, 269 U.S. at 417-18. While the remainder property may be subject to the navigational servitude, it is “fundamental error” to “over-emphasi[ze] the contingent character of the rights of the riparian owners.” Id. at 420-21.1114 E.g., United States v. Fort Smith River Dev. Corp., 349 F.2d 522, 525-26 (8th Cir. 1965) (reversing award that failed to consider special benefits due to United States’ revetment project that “manifestly” protected remainder land “from further reliction or erosion. That fact alone apparently places [the remainder] in a ‘better position’ because of the taking” and must be considered).