injuries. See Dawmar Partners, Ltd., 267 S.W.3d at 878 (explaining that diminish-éd value must be derived from a constitutionally’cognizable injury); see also Interstate Northborough P'ship v. State, 66 S.W.3d 213, 224 (Tex. 2001) (unsafe access). 9 . The State does not separately challenge McRoberts’s comparables. 10 . The $2.2 million difference between this figure and McRoberts’s $2,609,420.00 dam age opinion thus results from substituting High’s $5.4 million entire property-valuation opinion for McRoberts’s $3.2 million entire property-valuation opinion. 11 . Quite clearly, this is not. an instance of improperly > "blending” dissimilar, value categories to establish support for the jury’s finding. See Callejo v. Brazos Elect. Power Coop., Inc., 755 S.W.2d 73, 74-76 (Tex. 1988) (<HOLDING>). Instead, we merely acknowledge the range of
recognizing that an easement may entitle the easement owner to do acts which were not for the easement would constitute a nuisance holding that court of appeals erred by considering evidence establishing pretaking value of easement strip in determining legal sufficiency of evidence to support jurys posttaking value of easement strip holding that permanent easement arising from condemnation of pipeline easement reduced property value by 20 holding that the trial court erred in considering the intent of the parties when the document creating the easement was unambiguous holding that an easement agreement and an unrecorded easement plan created an easement