31. Intent
    1. Valuation/Intent: The owners are not required to offer evidence of their intention to subdivide for single family residence use.  Andrews v. Kingsbury Gen. Improvement, 84 Nev. 88, 90, 436 P.2d 813 (1968) (#41)
    2. Valuation/Intent: "(O)ne may not be deprived of his property without just compensation merely because he has chosen to let it lie dormant or perhaps was unaware of the value or the existence of the minerals."  Milchem Inc. v. District Court, 84 Nev. 541, 548, 445 P.2d 148 (1968) (#43)
    3. Valuation/Intent: "It has been held that, when there is no evidence in the record that the land in question is suitable or naturally adapted for use, or uses, other than that to which it was applied at the time of the taking, an owner may not present evidence that he intended to put property to some specific use which would have produced a certain amount of income and that as a result of the condemnation, he has been damaged in the amount of the prospective income he allegedly has been deprived; and, under such circumstances, that a jury may not consider, as a basis for awarding damages, the fact that the owner has been prohibited from putting his property to some intended use by reason of its condemnation. See, e.g., Tibbles, 123 N.E.2d 170 (Ind. 1954)."  State ex rel. Dep't Hwys. v. Nev. Aggregates, 92 Nev. 370, 551 P.2d 1095 (1976) (#53)
    Quite understandably, in the absence of such evidence, such damages are considered too speculative to provide a reasonable guide for the ascertainment of present fair market value. Empire Dist. Electric Co. v. Johnston, 268 S.W.2d 78 (Mo.App. 1954) Cf. Tacchino v. State ex rel. Dep't of Hwys., 89 Nev. 150, 508 P.2d 1212 (1975)." Id. at 372-373 (#53)
    4. Valuation/Intent: "Prior to the commencement of these proceedings, Nevada Aggregates implemented this plan and by August of 1972 (when the complaint was filed) the company was fully engaged in the task of extracting the minerals from the first designated area." Id. at 373 (#53)
    "There is a significant distinction between the cases referred to by appellant which condemn the practice of considering damages resulting from frustration of intended use and the instant case. ...we are not here concerned with a plan or intended use which had not yet been developed to fruition. Here, the plan was in effect at the time of the condemnation and income was being realized as a result of it...". (#53)
    The plan was not a fantasy of the landowner which had not been reduced to tangible returns but was a reality. There was no need to speculate as to the amount of income the plan would produce. Under such circumstances, the rationale behind the rule prohibiting consideration of intended use obviously does not apply." Id. at 374. cf. United States ex rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Powelson, 138 F.2d 343 (4th Cir. 1943); State v. Goodwyn, 133 So.2d 375 (Ala. 1961); In Re Ford, 263 N.Y.S.2d 831 (Sup.Ct.App.Div. 1965) (#53)
    5. Valuation/Intent (Dissent): "Evidence of what the owner might plan to do with his property is not to be considered by the jury as enhancing its market value."  Tacchino v. State ex rel. Dep't Hwys., 89 Nev. 150, 508 P.2d 1212 (1973) (#50)