59. Precondemnation Activities
    1. Precondemnation Activities/Taking: "Although the mere planning of a project is generally insufficient to constitute a taking, when precondemnation activities of the government become unreasonable or oppressive in such a manner that those activities adversely affect the market value of the property, then the property owner is entitled to compensation."  City of Sparks v. Armstrong, 103 Nev. 619, 748 P.2d 7 (1987) (#74)
    2. Precondemnation Activities/Taking: Government action that makes it "clear that future development on such parcels would not be permitted," supports a finding that the taking occurred at that time. Id. at 621-622 (#74)
    3. Taking/Precondemnation Activities: "It is well-established that the mere planning of a project is insufficient to constitute a taking for which an inverse condemnation action will lie."  Sproul Homes v. State ex rel. Dep't Hwys., 96 Nev. 441, 443, 611 P.2d 620 (1980) (#62)
    4. Taking/Precondemnation Activities: "Nevertheless, when the precondemnation activities of the government are unreasonable or oppressive and the affected property has diminished in market value as a result of the governmental misconduct, the owner of the property may be entitled to compensation." Id. at 444 (#62)
    5. Taking/Precondemnation Activities: Announcing a need for construction of a highway, announcing the location of the highway through a landowner's property, and refusing to institute condemnation proceedings, while discussing with the landowner the intent of the State to acquire the land, does not establish a claim in inverse condemnation for coercing the landowner into selling his land for less than fair market value. Id. at 443 (#62)
    6. Taking/Precondemnation Activities: "'If a governmental entity and its responsible officials were held subject to a claim for inverse condemnation merely because a parcel of land was designated for potential public use on one of these several authorized plans, the process of community planning would either grind to a halt, or deteriorate to publication of vacuous generalizations regarding the future use of land.'" Id. at 444. quoting  Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura, 514 P.2d 111, 116 (Cal. 1973) (#62)
    7. Valuation/Precondemnation Activities: Depreciation caused by the prospective taking once the government has announced its commitment to the project is not admissible evidence.  County of Clark v. Alper, 100 Nev. 382, 389, 685 P.2d 943 (1984) (#68)
    8. Valuation/Precondemnation Activities: "It would be manifestly unjust to permit a public authority to depreciate property values by a threat of a construction of a government project and then to take advantage of this depression in price when the property is eventually condemned." Id. at 389. Codified in NRS 342.230(3). "The property is to be valued as if the government project that resulted in the taking was neither contemplated nor carried out." Id. at 390 (#68)

    9.  Precondemnation activities: "We elect to follow the leading case on the rights of property owners who sustain damages as a result of precondemnation activities by the condemning authority," i.e., Klopping v. City of Whittier, 500 P.2d 1345 (Cal. 1972). State, Dep't of Transp. v. Barsy, 113 Nev. 712, 719-720, 941 P.2d 971 (1997) (6-7)

    10.  Precondemnation activities: In the case of Klopping v. City of Whittier, 500 P.2d 1345, 1355 (Cal. 1972), the California Supreme Court, basing its decision on constitutional grounds, held that where a condemnor 'acts unreasonably in issuing precondemnation statements, either by excessively delaying eminent domain action or by other oppressive conduct, our constitutional concern over property rights requires that the owner be compensated.' The Klopping court ruled that a condemnee must demonstrate that the condemnor acted improperly following a precondemnation announcement by unreasonably delaying action or by other unreasonable precondemnation conduct and that such acts resulted in a decrease in the market value of the property. We define this cause of action to give a condemnee the right to recover for damages caused by precondemnation activity when extraordinary delay or oppressive conduct by the condemnor has been shown. The condemnation process involves governmental agencies and the court system, and it is endemic with delay. Without the reasonably stringent standard we adopt today, every condemnation case would give birth to a separate cause of action based on precondemnation activity. But where the evidentiary burden is met, the condemnee must be compensated for loss of income due to precondemnation action or publicity." (Id. at 720)

    11.  Precondemnation activities: "The courts have specifically recognized that the issue (of precondemnation activity) is a question of fact." (Id. at 720).

    12.  Precondemnation activities: "For the landowner to state a cause of action, he also must allege facts showing an official action by the condemnor amounting to an announcement of intent to condemn. (citation omitted) "'The pivotal issue...is whether the public agency's activities have gone beyond the planning stage to reach the 'acquiring stage.'" The public agency's activities reach the "acquring stage" when condemnation has taken place, steps have been taken to commence eminent domain proceedings, or there has been an official act or expression of an intent to condemn." (Id. at 720)

    13.  "In State, Department of Transportation v. Barsy, this court held that the condemnor's precondemnation activities may entitle // the condemnee to damages in addition to the compensation for the taking." Clark County v. Sun State Properties, 119 Nev. 329, 340-341, 72 P.3d 954 (2003)

    14. "Because NDOT was unable to provide an accurate time frame for acquisition of the property, the two tenants refused to renew their leases, and Barsy was unable to attract new tenants." (Id. at 341)

    15. "Following Klopping, this court concluded that when the condemnee meets the evidentiary burden, 'the condemnee must be compensated for loss of income due to precondmnation action or publicity.' (Id. at 341)

    16. "If, after filing an action, the condemnor unreasonably delays in bringing the action to trial within two years, then it would appear consonant with out concerns shown in Barsy that the condemnee receive damages for lost profits caused by such litigation delay." (Id. at.342)

    17. "The condemnbee must demonstrate that the condemnor caused unreasonable delay in bringing the action to trial by purposely and in bad faith pursuing an unconscionable dilatory course of action during litigation." (Id.)

    18. "In addition to receiving the benefit of the inflated value when trial has not commenced within two years, damages for lost profits are permitted when the condemnee demonstrates that the condemnor unreasonably delayed in bringing the action to trial. Even if the condemnee fails to meet this stringent standard, we note that the condemnee is entitled to prejudgment interest from the date of the taking." (Id. at 19-20).