38. Just Compensation
 
    1. "'The word 'just' is used to intensify the meaning of the word 'compensation' and conveys the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample.'" (quoting Sorenson, #54) (Originating in Henry, #6, 8 Nev. at 171-172; also in Tacchino, #50, 89 Nev. at 152, and Alper, #57, 100 Nev. at 392)  Stagecoach Util. v. Stagecoach Gen. Imp. Dist., 102 Nev. 363, 364, 724 P.2d 205 (1986) (#72)
 
    2. Injunction/Just Compensation: "The legislature has an undoubted right to confer upon the county commissioners the power to open roads whenever they may deem it necessary, upon a proper compensation being made to those whose property is taken for such purposes. But until such compensation is made, there is no power within the State which can legally appropriate the property of the citizen for such purposes, except in certain cases mentioned in section 8, article I. of the Constitution of the state."  Champion v. Sessions, 1 Nev. 404, 406-407 (1865) (#1)

    3. Just compensation: "It is, of course, fundamental that property owners who suffer the loss of their property through condemnation proceedings are entitled to receive just compensation as provided under the 'just compensation' clauses of the United States Constitution and, in the instant case, Article 1, section 8 of the Nevada Constitution." State, Dep't of Transp. v. Barsy, 113 Nev. 712, 719, 941 P.2d 971 (1997) (6)

    4. "Under federal and state constitutional law, condemnation of private property requires the condemnor to pay just compensation. Constitutional principles provide that just compensation is measured by the fair market value of the condemned property. NRS 37.009(6) defines fair market value as the 'most probable price," which this court has held is constitutional." County of Clark v. Sun State Properties, 119 Nev. 329, 335, 72 P.3d 954 (2003)

    5. "The landowner is entitled to just compensation for the government's taking of private property [fn to Nev. Const. art. 1, sec. 8] and has the burden of establishing the value of land so taken. [fn to State v. Pinson, 66 Nev. 227, 237-238, 207 P.2d 1105, 1110(1949)] Just compensation is determined by the property's market value 'by reference to the highest and best use for which the land is available and for which it is plainly adaptable.' [fn. to County of Clark v. Alper, 100 Nev. 382, 386-87, 685 P.2d 943, 946 (1984)] However, such use must be reasonably probable. [fn to County of Clark v. Buckwalter, 115 Nev. 58, 63, 974 P.2d 1162, 1165 (1999)] In general, the trier of fact may consider zoning restrictions permitting a viable economic use of the property in determining the property's value. [fn to Alper, 100 Nev. at 389, 685 P.2d at 948] In fact, the district court should give 'due consideration...to those zoning ordinances that would be taken into account by a prudent and willing buyer. [fn: Id. at 390, 685 P.2d at 948] City of Las Vegas v. Bustos, 119 Nev. 360, 362, 75 P.3d 351 (2003)
[Ed: City argued that it was required to defer to the general or master plan and that the district court could not reasonably conclude that the city would grant a zoning change in noncompliance with its master plan. The city's own planning supervisor testified that the zoning change would require an amendment to the master plan, but that spot zoning is "fairly common" and that the city council frequently proceeds contrarily. Court held that "the district court's findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal if they are supported by substantial evidence" and that the district court "determined that a reasonable and prudent buyer would conclude that he or she could likely obtain a zoning change, given the character of the neighborhood, the high volume of traffic on Alta Drive, and the surrounding properties." The district court likely didn't appreciate hearing the city argue for rare adherence to its master plan. This case doesn't say anything new, but does at least keep the condemnor from hiding behind its master plan, and is instructive for the practitioner.]

    6. "The trier of fact may consider the effect of future rezoning or variances on the highest and best use of the condemned property when determining its value." City of Las Vegas v. Bustos, 119 Nev. 360, 362, 75 P.3d 351 (2003)