Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): takes place that it poses the potential for additional members for the country club. There was even some conversation, although I can’t officially state it, that apparently one of the developers had talked about linking with Mission Valley. Tr. 175. Messrs. Durrance and Dellos did not describe what such access would have entailed in the before condition. The gravamen of Plaintiffs’ claim for lost access damages was JMC’s severance by the rails corridor from “native wooded lands, well maintained single family homes, and [a] golf course” on Mission Valley. PX 21B (BB-PLTF-13050); Pis.’ Post-Trial Br. 38. The mere adjacency of JMC to Mission Valley does not equate to potential access or the right to severance damages. See United States v. Mattox, 375 F.2d 461, 463 (4th Cir.1967) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs have not established a manifest 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that congress envisioned two separate petitions filed to review two separate final orders (B) holding that if subsequent to the taking and before the trial the ordinance was actually amended to permit the previously forbidden use then that of  itself was weighty evidence of the existence at the time of the taking of the fact that there was a reasonable probability of an imminent change (C) holding that lack of a separate judgment does not preclude the taking of an appeal from a district courts final decision because the parties may waive the separate judgment requirement where one has accidentally not been entered (D) holding that premises owner had duty to use degree of care in performing activities that owner of ordinary prudence would use under same or similar circumstances (E) recognizing that mere proximity or possibility of an integrated use of two separate tracts use will not confer upon the owner a right to severance damages without reasonable probability that the separate tracts could have been combined for such integrated use before the taking
Output (English): holding that if subsequent to the taking and before the trial the ordinance was actually amended to permit the previously forbidden use then that of  itself was weighty evidence of the existence at the time of the taking of the fact that there was a reasonable probability of an imminent change