Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): property is properly analyzed under takings law, a court must first examine whether the government intended to invade a protected property interest or whether the alleged invasion of a claimant’s property was the direct, natural, or probable result of defendant’s intentional actions. Id. at 1355-56. Next, the court must determine whether the government appropriated a benefit for itself at the property owner’s expense or preempted the owner’s right to enjoy their property for an extended period of time. Id. at 1357-58. In order to meet the second prong of the test, plaintiffs must prove that defendant’s interference with their property “was substantial and frequent enough to rise to the level of a taking.” Id. at 1357; see also Moden v. United States, 404 F.3d 1335, 1342 (Fed.Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Wilfong v. United States, 480 F.2d 1326, 1329 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the measure of damages of converted property is the market value at the time of conversion (B) holding that testimony by the owners expert to the value of trees on appropriated property was properly admitted to rebut or impeach testimony by the appropriating agencys expert that the trees had no value in terms of their effect on the propertys market value (C) holding that the state is obligated to pay property owners when it regulates private property under its police power in such a manner that the regulation effectively deprives the owner of the economically viable use of that property (D) holding that a takings claimant must show that the invasion appropriated a benefit to the government at the expense of the property owner at least by preempting the property owners right to enjoy its property for an extended period of time rather than merely by inflicting an injury that reduces the propertys value (E) holding that the property owners testimony alone placed the value of the stolen property above the amount necessary to constitute grand larceny
Output (English): holding that the property owners testimony alone placed the value of the stolen property above the amount necessary to constitute grand larceny