in or redirection of traffic flow to a commercial property is not a com-pensable taking of a property right. See also State v. Dunn, 888 N.E.2d 858, 864-66 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (explaining the differences between traffic-flow cases and the ingress/egress cases), trans. denied. State v. Kimco of Evansville, Inc., 902 N.E.2d 206, 212-14 (Ind.2009), cert. denied, -- U.S. --, 130 S.Ct. 1136, - L.Ed.2d -- (2010) (footnote omitted; first alteration original). - Reaffirming Ensley, the Kimeo court held that the owners of a shopping center were not entitled to damages resulting "from street reconfigurations that affect traffic flow through the center and prevent expansion of existing points of ingress or egress, but leave existing points in place." Id. at 208; see also Dunn, 888 N.E.2d at 869 (<HOLDING>). Among the cases in which a compensa-ble
holding that witnesses traveling from finland were no more inconvenienced by having to travel to indiana than they would be traveling to new york holding that the termination of a billboard lease according to its terms was not a taking of property by eminent domain holding that a landowner who lost a strip of property to a highway widening project could not recover losses caused by concurrent placement of a median strip because when less than the entire property is taken compensation for damage to the remainder can be awarded only if such damage is caused by the taking and cjonstruction of the median not the taking caused the alleged damage holding that where necessary to enforce the california constitutions requirement of just compensation for a taking courts can disregard statutory eminent domain requirements holding that the construction of a median in a roadway that causes traffic traveling to and from an abutting property to travel a cireuitous route does not constitute a compensable taking under indiana eminent domain law