Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 1854, 60 L.Ed.2d 435 (1979) (quoting Olson v. United States, 292 U.S. 246, 255, 54 S.Ct. 704, 78 L.Ed. 1236 (1934)). Although condemnation of private property under the Natural Gas Act is a matter of federal law, 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h) provides that a federal district court must look to and apply the “practice and procedure” followed in similar proceedings in the courts where the property is situated. Generally speaking, state law governs compensation issues in eminent domain proceedings involving private interests. See Georgia Power Co. v. 138.30 Acres of Land, 617 F.2d 1112, 1121 n. 5 (5th Cir.1980) (en banc) (applying state law to questions concerning compensation under the Federal Power Act); Algonquin Gas Transmission Company v. 60 Acres of Land, 855 F.Supp. 449, 453 (D.Mass.1994) (<HOLDING>); Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company v. 104 Acres 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that it is an open question whether drpa is a federal agency governed by the apa or a state agency governed by state administrative law (B) recognizing that it is the proponents burden to demonstrate the admissibility of expert scientific testimony (C) holding that the burden of laying the proper foundation for the admission of the expert testimony is on the party offering the expert and admissibility must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence (D) holding that the admissibility of expert testimony was governed by state law (E) holding that admissibility of a confession is governed by determining from the totality of the circumstances whether or not it was made voluntarily
Output (English): recognizing that it is the proponents burden to demonstrate the admissibility of expert scientific testimony