81. Taking
 
    1. It is not a taking of private property for public use for the state legislature to grant a person a right of entry upon property belonging to the federal government, even though Congress has allowed another to construct ditches and canals (43 U.S.C.).  Hobart v. Ford, 6 Nev. 77 (1870) (#3)
 
    2. In considering whether an annexation ordinance is so unreasonable that it constitutes the taking of property for public use without just compensation, the court should not approach the problem in a narrow and restricted view of the needs of the city or of the property itself, but broadly and in a manner commensurate with the history of the city's growth, its present necessities and its promise of future development.  St. Ex Rel. Mathews v. City of Reno, 71 Nev. 208, 285 P.2d 551 (1955) (#24)
 
    3. Although a franchise is property which cannot be taken for public use without compensation, the State does not take a franchise to provide water when the State itself creates a Water District to service the same customers, where the franchise was not clearly exclusive. "'Statutory grants of that character are to be construed strictly in favor of the public, and whatever is not unequivocally granted is withheld; nothing passes by mere implication.'"  L.V. Valley Water v. Michelas, 77 Nev. 171, 179, 360 P.2d 1041 (1961) (#33)
 
    4. "A regulation of business which actually prohibits such business does not constitute a taking when, as here, such regulation promotes the health, safety, welfare or morals of the community and thus is a valid exercise of police powers."  Kuban v. McGimsey, 96 Nev. 105, 605 P.2d 623 (1980) (ordinance banning houses of prostitution) (#61)
 
    5. "Here, the ordinance, although having a significantly adverse economic impact upon appellants' ventures, does not deprive appellants of all reasonable uses of their property." Id. at 112 (#61)
 
    6. 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, 621, 748 P.2d 7 (1987) (#74)
 
    7. 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)
 
    8. 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)
 
    9. 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)
 
    10. 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)
 
    11. 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)
 
    12. Taking/Special Assessment: A local assessment beyond the special benefits conferred is a taking of private property for public use without compensation. The return to the property owner of the benefit is the foundation of special assessments.  City of Reno v. Folsom, 86 Nev. 39, 41, 464 P.2d 454 (1970) (#47)
 
    13. Taking/Special Assessment: "'(T)he exaction from the owner of private property of the cost of a public improvement in substantial excess of the special benefits accruing to him is, to the extent of such excess, a taking, under the guise of taxation, of private property for public use without compensation.' (Emphasis in original.)" Id. at 42 (#47)
 
    14. Taking/Special Assessment: "It is well established that a special assessment, absent a benefit to the property assessed, is illegal and void." Id. at 42 (#47)
 
    15. Taxes/Taking: "'To any extent that one man is compelled to pay in order to relieve others of a public burden properly resting upon them, his property is taken for private purposes...."  State v. Boyd, 27 Nev. 249, 256 (1903) (#13)
 
    16. Taxes/Taking/Mandamus: Mandamus will issue to require the county treasurer to place all moneys collected from city licenses in the city's general fund; a locality cannot be compelled to pay the debts of another, for this would be a taking of private property for public use without compensation. "'A state purpose must be accomplished by state taxation, a county purpose by county taxation,'" etc. Id. at 256-257 (#13)

    17. Sale/Transfer: When the owner sells the property after the condemnor has taken occupancy, but prior to a final order of condemnation, the seller is entitled to the entire condemnation award, absent a contract to the contrary. Argier v. Nevada Power Co., 114 Nev.137, 952 P.2d 1390 (1998).

    18. Taking/Sale/Transfer: "The [Supreme] Court held that when the government enters into possession of property prior to acquiring title, it is the former event which constitutes the taking. Dow [United States v. Dow, 357 U.S. 17 (1958)], 357 U.S. at 22. Therefore, the person who owned the subject land at the time the government took possession was entitled to compensation.." Id. at 140

    19. Taking: In Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), "the Court explained that where governmental action has caused a permanent physical occupation of the land, the Court has consistently found a taking to the extent of the occupation." Id. at 141

    20. Taking: "Thus, where there is an entry into possession by the condemning authority prior to formal commendation (sic) proceedings, the taking which occurs at the entry must be considered the taking for all purposes." Id.