23. Estates In Land
    1. The statute states only that a fee simple is "subject to be taken." "Under such statutes, only such an interest as is necessary can be taken." Goldfield Con. v. O.S.A. Co., 38 Nev. 426, 447, 150 P. 313 (1915) (#16)
    2. Estates In Land/Covenants: "(T)he extinguishment of a restrictive covenant by public authority for public use is compensable..., since...in large measure identical with the express grant of a positive easement."  Probasco v. City of Reno, 85 Nev. 563, 564-565, 459 P.2d 770 (1969) (#46)
    3. Estates In Land/Easements: "A railroad ordinarily does not hold in fee the land over which its right of way is constructed and maintained but merely an easement for such right of way whether such land is acquired by eminent domain or otherwise; that it might hold more than an easement is never presumed."  City Motel, Inc. v. State, 75 Nev. 137, 140-141, 336 P.2d 375 (1959) (#27)
    4. Estates In Land/Easements: "The extinguishment of a positive easement by public acquisition gives rise to compensation." "In Nevada, such an easement is expressly subject to condemnation for public use."  Probasco v. City of Reno, 85 Nev. 563, 564-565, 459 P.2d 770 (1969) (#46)
    5. Estates In Land/Easements: There is no compensation for extinguishment of implied negative easements of light, air and view. "We now expressly repudiate the doctrine of implied negative easements in the context of eminent domain." Id. at 565. Distinguish acquisition of a right to light, air and view by express covenant. Id. at 566 (#46)
    6. Estates In Land/Restrictive Covenants: A restrictive covenant is an interest in property requiring just compensation for its taking by eminent domain.  Meredith v. Washoe Co. Sch. Dist., 84 Nev. 15, 17, 19, 435 P.2d 750 (1968) (#40)
    7. Estates In Land/Restrictive Covenants: "The measure of compensation is the value of the interest that is extinguished. But since the value of a restrictive covenant cannot be in the abstract, we must look at the market value of the dominant tenement before and after the taking. In substance, the value of the loss offset by the value of the benefits is the amount of compensation to be awarded. NRS 37.100." Id. at 19 (#40)
    8. Estates In Land/Right of Way: A deed conveying a "right of way" creates only an easement; even a grant of a particular parcel with the designated purpose that it be used as a right of way creates only an easement.  City Motel, Inc. v. State, 75 Nev. 137, 141-143, 336 P.2d 375 (1959) (#27)
    9. Estates In Land/Water rights: A water right is a real property right subject to eminent domain condemnation.  Carson City v. Estate of Lompa, 88 Nev. 541, 501 P.2d 662 (1972) (#49)

    10.  "We hold that the eminent domain statutes codified the undivided-fee rule, which requires the court to first determine the value of the property as a whole, and in a subsequent hearing, to apportion the award among the various interests." County of Clark v. Sun State Properties, 119 Nev. 329, 337, 72 P.3d 954 (2003)

    11.  "The undivided-fee rule provides that condemned property is first valued as though it was unencumbered, and in a subsequent hearing, the total award is apportioned among the various interests. ... Under the undivided-fee rule, the condemnor has no interest in the apportionment hearing because it has met its obligation when it pays the court the total award. Furthermore, the undivided-fee fule provides that 'the division of a fee into separate interests cannot increase the amount of compensation that the condemnor has to pay for the taking of the fee.'" (Id. at pp. 9-10) "We decline to follow the Lynbar, Inc. decision and its reasoning." (Id. at p. 13)