nature, may be the basis for an overall diminution in value of the remainder and therefore, the basis for damage”). Some courts have held that “any factor,' including public fear, which impacts on the market value of land taken for a public purpose may be considered to explain the basis for an expert’s valuation opinion. Whether this fear is objectively reasonable is irrelevant to the issue of full compensation in an eminent domain proceeding.” Florida Power & Light Co. v. Jennings, 518 So.2d 895, 899 (Fla.1987). See also Ryan v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 249 Kan. 1, 5, 815 P.2d 528, 538 (1991) (evidence of fear in marketplace held admissible regarding value of property); City of Santa Fe v. Komis, 114 N.M. 659, 662-663, 845 P.2d 753, 756-757 (1992) (same); Cri 074, 1078 (5th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Robertson, 354 F.2d 877, 881
holding that severance pay policy was part of employment contract recognizing the financial position of the defendant as a factor in assessing a punitive damages award holding that local buyers fear of possible knapweed infestation legitimately affected calculation of severance damages holding that increased fear of flooding was a matter that factfinder could properly consider in assessing severance damages holding that stigma damages were properly included in calculation of severance damages where proximity of gas pipeline could trigger fears about possible mishaps