11. Burden of Proof
    1. The burden rests on the owner to prove severance damages. Andrews v. Kingsbury Gen. Improvement, 84 Nev. 88, 90, 436 P.2d 813 (1968) (#41)
    2. The burden to prove the amount to be paid is on the landowner. T.R.G.E. Co. v. Durham, 38 Nev. 311, 321, 426, 149 P. 178 (1915) (#15)
    3.   a) to prove necessity - on the condemnor. State v. Pinson, 66 Nev. 227, 207 P.2d 1105 (1949) (#20)
         b) "(T)he burden of proof (once the necessity for the taking has been proved by the condemnor) is upon the condemnee or landowner to prove the value of the land taken and also the damage resulting to other lands of the landowner by reason of the severance."  Id. at 236.
         c) benefits - "The burden of proof as to benefits accruing to the landowner is naturally upon the condemnor." Id. at 238.
         d) Placing the burden of proof on the landowner does little more than allow him to open and close. Id. at 238.

    4. "In a condemnation proceeding the burden is upon the landowner to prove the damage resulting to his other lands by reason of the severance." Mack v. Dep't. of Highways, 77 Nev. 422, 424-425, 365 P.2d 1117 (1961) (#34)

    5. The Uniform Eminent Domain Code Section 904, providing that "(n)o party has the burden of proof on the issue of the amount of compensation," is "well reasoned and persuasive," but "such a statutory change must be instituted through the legislature, not the court." [the landowner was not arguing for a statutory change, and none is needed! (c.g.)] Pappas v. State, Dep't Transp., 104 Nev. 572, 576, 763 P.2d 348 (1988) (#76)
    6. Joinder/Burden: "The party urging (joinder) must lay a foundation showing some probability of joinder and carry the burden of proof. In laying such a foundation, elements affecting value which are possible, but not reasonably probable, should be excluded." M & R Investment Co. v. State Dep't Transp., 103 Nev. 445, 451-452, 744 P.2d 531 (1987) (#66)