208 (1975); J. W. Clement Co., 821 N.Y.S.2d 845, 269 N.E.2d at 903 ("We simply have a manifestation of an intent to condemn and such, even considering the protracted delay attending final appropriation, cannot cast the municipality in liability upon the theory of a 'taking' for there was no appropriation of the property in its accepted legal sense."); Calhoun v. City of Durant, 970 P.2d 608, 613 (Okla.Civ.App.1997) ("Proposed, but unfulfilled plans to condemn land do not constitute a taking because such plans do not amount to an exercise of dominion and control over the property by the condemning authority and do not prohibit the landowner from exercising dominion and control over his property."); Kiriakides v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville County, 382 S.C. 8, 675 S.E.2d 439, 443-44 (2009) (<HOLDING>); see also J.R. Kemper, Plotting or Planning in
holding that period of three years and nine months of prospective employment was not unreasonable holding that in condemnation proceedings the landowner has the burden of establishing the value of the property holding that the institution of condemnation proceedings does not constitute a taking even where the condemning authority abandons the action nine months later holding that there is no right to monetary compensation for a regulatory taking in an inverse condemnation action holding the circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction over condemnation proceedings