17. Contracts
 
    1. Although the majority approach is to distinguish between contract rights and property interests, this Court will follow County of San Diego v. Miller, 119 Cal.Rptr. 491, 532 P.2d 139 (1975) where it held that "the right to compensation is to be determined by whether the condemnation has deprived the claimant of a valuable right rather than by whether his right can technically be called an 'estate' or 'interest' in his land." 532 P.2d at 143. [The landowner is deprived of the option only if it is of no value without the land and if he cannot sell it to the State. The decision misses or evades this point; the facts may not be in the record. Did the optionor here get a windfall? Can the State condemn the option? (c.g.)]  State, Dep't of Transp. v. Las Vegas Bldg., 104 Nev. 479, 761 P.2d 843 (1988) (#75)
 
    2. [The property was more valuable to these owners than any prospective purchaser, because they also owned an option contract for adjacent lands. This decision effectively allows compensation for this loss of business venture, contrary to all prior law limiting 'just compensation to market value - what a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller, irrespective of considerations of tangential business loss. (c.g.)] (#75)
 
3. Contracts/Public Policy: "A contract with a public body to locate public facilities or highways in a certain place tends to prevent the change or removal of such facilities when the needs or convenience of the public demand. All such contracts tend to operate to the detriment of the public interest and are against public policy and void." County of Clark v. Bonanza No. 1, 96 Nev. 643, 652, 615 P.2d 939 (1980) (#64)