What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court in which the case originated. Focus on the court in which the case originated, not the administrative agency. For this reason, if appropiate note the origin court to be a state or federal appellate court rather than a court of first instance (trial court). If the case originated in the United States Supreme Court (arose under its original jurisdiction or no other court was involved), note the origin as "United States Supreme Court". If the case originated in a state court, note the origin as "State Court". Do not code the name of the state. The courts in the District of Columbia present a special case in part because of their complex history. Treat local trial (including today's superior court) and appellate courts (including today's DC Court of Appeals) as state courts. Consider cases that arise on a petition of habeas corpus and those removed to the federal courts from a state court as originating in the federal, rather than a state, court system. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus begins in the federal district court, not the state trial court. Identify courts based on the naming conventions of the day. Do not differentiate among districts in a state. For example, use "New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York" for all the districts in New York.

Opinion:
UNITED STATES v. REYNOLDS et ux.
No. 88.
Argued January 14, 1970
Decided February 24, 1970
Assistant Attorney General Kashiwa argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Raymond N. Zagone, and Robert S. Lynch.
Erwin S. Solomon argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States brought this suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky to condemn more than 250 acres of the respondents’ land for a federal development known as the Nolin Reservoir Project located in that State. An important issue in the case was raised by the respondents’ claim that 78 acres of the land, taken for construction of recreational facilities adjacent to the reservoir, had not been within the original scope of the project. A jury awarded the respondents $20,000 as just compensation for all the land taken. Upon an appeal by the respondents, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial, finding that the District Judge in his instructions to the jury had erroneously referred to matters disclosed outside the jury’s presence. The trial and appellate courts were in agreement, however, in rejecting the Government’s contention that the “scope-of-the-project” issue was for the trial judge to decide and should not, therefore, have been submitted to the jury at all. There being a conflict between the circuits on this question, we granted certiorari to consider a recurring problem of importance in federal condemnation proceedings. 396 U. S. 814.
The Fifth Amendment provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. And “just compensation” means the full monetary-equivalent of the property taken. The owner is to be put in the same position monetarily as he would have occupied if his property had not been taken. In enforcing the constitutional mandate, the Court at an early date adopted the concept of market value: the owner is entitled to the fair market value of the property at the time of the taking. But this basic measurement of compensation has been hedged with certain refinements developed over the years in the interest of effectuating the constitutional guarantee. It is one of these refinements that is in controversy here.
The Court early recognized that the “market value” of property condemned can be affected, adversely or favorably, by the imminence of the very public project that makes the condemnation necessary. And it was perceived that to permit compensation to be either reduced or increased because of an alteration in market value attributable to the project itself would not lead to the “just compensation” that the Constitution requires. On the other hand, the development of a public project may also lead to enhancement in the market value of neighboring land that is not covered by the project itself. And if that land is later condemned, whether for an extension of the existing project or for some other public purpose, the general rule of just compensation requires that such enhancement in value be wholly taken into account, since fair market value is generally to be determined with due consideration of all available economic uses of the property at the time of the taking.
In United States v. Miller, 317 U. S. 369, the Court gave full articulation to these principles:
“If a distinct tract is condemned, in whole or in part, other lands in the neighborhood may increase in market value due to the proximity of the public improvement erected on the land taken. Should the Government, at a later date, determine to take these other lands, it must pay their market value as enhanced by this factor of proximity. If, however, the public project from the beginning included the taking of certain tracts but only one of them is taken in the first instance, the owner of the other tracts should not be allowed an increased value for his lands which are ultimately to be taken any more than the owner of the tract first condemned is entitled to be allowed an increased market value because adjacent lands not immediately taken increased in value due to the projected improvement.
“The question then is whether the respondents' lands were probably within the scope of the project from the time the Government was committed to it. If they were not, but were merely adjacent lands, the subsequent enlargement of the project to include them ought not to deprive the respondents of the value added in the meantime by the proximity of the improvement. If, on the other hand, they were, the Government ought not to pay any increase in value arising from the known fact that the lands probably would be condemned. The owners ought not to gain by speculating on probable increase in value due to the Government’s activities.” 317 U. S., at 376-377.
There is no controversy in the present case regarding these basic principles. The parties agree that if the acreage in issue was “probably within the scope of the project from the time the Government was committed to it,” substantially less compensation is due than if it was not. For if the property was probably within the project’s original scope, then its compensable value is to be measured in terms of agricultural use. If, on the other hand, the acreage was outside the original scope of the project, its compensable value is properly measurable in terms of its economic potential as lakeside residential or recreational property.
The issue between the parties is simply whether the “scope-of-the-project” question is to be determined by the trial judge or by the jury. There is no claim that the issue is of constitutional dimensions. For it has long been settled that there is no constitutional right to a jury in eminent domain proceedings. See Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548, 593. As Professor Moore has put the matter:
“The practice in England and in the colonies prior to the adoption in 1791 of the Seventh Amendment, the position taken by Congress contemporaneously with, and subsequent to, the adoption of the Amendment, and the position taken by the Supreme Court and nearly all of the lower federal courts lead to the conclusion that there is no constitutional right to jury trial in the federal courts in an action for the condemnation of property under the power of eminent domain.”
It is not, therefore, to the Seventh Amendment that we look in this case, but to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 71A (h) provides that, except in circumstances not applicable here, “any party” to a federal eminent domain proceeding “may have a trial by jury of the issue of just compensation,” unless the court in its discretion orders that that issue “shall be determined by a commission of three persons appointed by it. ... Trial of all issues shall otherwise be by the court.” The Rule thus provides that, except for the single issue of just compensation, the trial judge is to decide all issues, legal and factual, that may be presented. The critical inquiry is thus whether “the issue of just compensation,” as that phrase is used in the Rule, is broad enough to embrace the question whether the condemned property was probably within the scope of the federal project.
Although the matter could be decided either way without doing violence to the language of Rule 71A (h), we think the Rule’s basic structure makes clear that a jury in federal condemnation proceedings is to be confined to the performance of a single narrow but important function — the determination of a compensation award within ground rules established by the trial judge. The Rule gives the trial court discretion to eliminate a jury entirely. And when a jury is afforded, the sweeping language of the final sentence of the Rule discloses a clear intent to give the district judge a role in condemnation proceedings much broader than he occupies in a conventional jury trial. It is for him to decide “all issues” other than the precise issue of the amount of compensation to be awarded. It follows that it is for the judge to tell the jury the criteria it must follow in determining what amount will constitute just compensation, and that in order to do so he must decide the “scope-of-the-project” issue as a preliminary matter. We therefore approve and adopt the procedural rule announced by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Wardy v. United States, 402 F. 2d 762, and hold that it is for the judge and not the jury to decide whether the property condemned was probably within the project’s original scope.
Finally, the Government asks us to take this occasion to “clarify” the “scope-of-the-project” test. We think the test was stated with admirable clarity by a unanimous Court in Miller: if the “lands were probably within the scope of the project from the time the Government was committed to it,” no enhancement in value attributable to the project is to be considered in awarding compensation. As with any test that deals in probabilities, its application to any particular set of facts requires discriminating judgment. The rule does not require a showing that the land ultimately taken was actually specified in the original plans for the project. It need only be shown that during the course of the planning or original construction it became evident that land so situated would probably be needed for the public use.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Congress authorized the Nolin Reservoir Project in 1938 as part of a comprehensive flood control plan for the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. See Act of June 28, 1938, § 4, 52 Stat. 1217. Congress first appropriated funds for the planning stage of the project in 1956. See Public Works Appropriation Act of 1957, 70 Stat. 479. In July 1958 the Chief of Army Engineers approved a general design memorandum contemplating the construction of recreational areas in connection with the project, but evidently not specifying where they would be. The first funds for construction were appropriated in 1958. See Public Works Appropriation Act of 1959, 72 Stat. 1573. Construction began in January 1959.
Most of the respondents’ acreage condemned by the Government was taken because it would be inundated by the reservoir, and there is no question that this land was within the original scope of the project. But 78 acres of the tract were taken for the construction of recreational facilities adjacent to the reservoir itself. These 78 acres were not referred to in a design memorandum submitted in June 1959. They were, however, designated for taking in a memorandum approved in October of that year. It has been Government policy to build recreational areas in conjunction with federal reservoir projects since 1944. Act of December 22, 1944, § 4, 58 Stat. 889.
United States v. 811.92 Acres of Land, 404 F. 2d 303.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that the “scope-of-the-project” issue is to be determined by the trial judge. Wardy v. United States, 402 F. 2d 762, 763.
Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 326.
United States v. New River Collieries Co., 262 U. S. 341, 343; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 299, 304.
New York v. Sage, 239 U. S. 57, 61; Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403, 408.
Kerr v. South Park Commissioners, 117 U. S. 379, 386.
Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U. S. 282, 304-305.
United States v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., 365 U. S. 624, 635-636; United States v. Cors, 337 U. S. 325, 332-334.
United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U. S. 53, 81; Boom Co. v. Patterson, supra.
5 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶38.32 [1], p. 239 (2d ed. 1969). (Footnote omitted.)
The full text of Rule 71A (h) is as follows:
“If the action involves the exercise of the power of eminent domain under the law of the United States, any tribunal specially constituted by an Act of Congress governing the case for the trial of the issue of just compensation shall be the tribunal for the determination of that issue; but if there is no such specially constituted tribunal any party may have a trial by jury of the issue of just compensation by filing a demand therefor within the time allowed for answer or within such further time as the court may fix, unless the court in its discretion orders that, because of the character, location, or quantity of the property to be condemned, or for other reasons in the interest of justice, the issue of compensation shall be determined by a commission of three persons appointed by it. If a commission is appointed it shall have the powers of a master provided in subdivision (c) of Rule 53 and proceedings before it shall be governed by the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (d) of Rule 53. Its action and report shall be determined by a majority and its findings and report shall have the effect, and be dealt with by the court in accordance with the practice, prescribed in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Rule 53. Trial of all issues shall otherwise be by the court.”
In United States v. Miller, supra, it appears that that question was decided by the trial judge, who excluded all evidence of enhanced value attributable to the project. 317 U. S., at 372-373. While this Court's opinion in Miller approved of that procedure, it is to be remembered that the case was decided before the adoption of Rule 71A (h) in 1951, at a time when federal courts in condemnation proceedings followed the procedures of the States in which they were located. See Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 71A; 7 J. Moore, supra, ¶ 71A.03, p. 2716 (2d ed. 1968).
“The question was whether appellants’ ‘lands were probably within the scope of ,the project from the time the Government was committed to it.’ . . . Appellants contend that the jury should have been allowed to answer this question. Under rule 71A (h) the jury’s function is limited to determining ‘just compensation.’ It is the duty of the court to decide the legal issues, as well as all other fact issues. [Citations omitted.] Thus, instead of infringing on the jury’s functions, the judge merely decided a legal question which limited the factors necessary to the determination of ‘just compensation.’ ” Wardy v. United States, 402 F. 2d, at 763. See also Scott Lumber Co. v. United States, 390 F. 2d 388, 392 (C. A. 9th Cir.); United States v. 91.69 Acres of Land, 334 F. 2d 229, 231-232 (C. A. 4th Cir.).
Compare John L. Roper Lumber Co. v. United States, 150 F. 2d 329, 332, with Scott v. United States, 146 F. 2d 131, 132-133.

Question: What is the court in which the case originated?

Choices:
U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
U.S. Court of International Trade
U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims
U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
U.S. Court of Military Review
U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals
U.S. Customs Court
U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
U.S. Tax Court
Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals
U.S. Court for China
U.S. Consular Courts
U.S. Commerce Court
Territorial Supreme Court
Territorial Appellate Court
Territorial Trial Court
Emergency Court of Appeals
Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
Bankruptcy Court
U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction)
Alabama Middle U.S. District Court
Alabama Northern U.S. District Court
Alabama Southern U.S. District Court
Alaska U.S. District Court
Arizona U.S. District Court
Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court
Arkansas Western U.S. District Court
California Central U.S. District Court
California Eastern U.S. District Court
California Northern U.S. District Court
California Southern U.S. District Court
Colorado U.S. District Court
Connecticut U.S. District Court
Delaware U.S. District Court
District Of Columbia U.S. District Court
Florida Middle U.S. District Court
Florida Northern U.S. District Court
Florida Southern U.S. District Court
Georgia Middle U.S. District Court
Georgia Northern U.S. District Court
Georgia Southern U.S. District Court
Guam U.S. District Court
Hawaii U.S. District Court
Idaho U.S. District Court
Illinois Central U.S. District Court
Illinois Northern U.S. District Court
Illinois Southern U.S. District Court
Indiana Northern U.S. District Court
Indiana Southern U.S. District Court
Iowa Northern U.S. District Court
Iowa Southern U.S. District Court
Kansas U.S. District Court
Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court
Kentucky Western U.S. District Court
Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court
Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court
Louisiana Western U.S. District Court
Maine U.S. District Court
Maryland U.S. District Court
Massachusetts U.S. District Court
Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court
Michigan Western U.S. District Court
Minnesota U.S. District Court
Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court
Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court
Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court
Missouri Western U.S. District Court
Montana U.S. District Court
Nebraska U.S. District Court
Nevada U.S. District Court
New Hampshire U.S. District Court
New Jersey U.S. District Court
New Mexico U.S. District Court
New York Eastern U.S. District Court
New York Northern U.S. District Court
New York Southern U.S. District Court
New York Western U.S. District Court
North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court
North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court
North Carolina Western U.S. District Court
North Dakota U.S. District Court
Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court
Ohio Northern U.S. District Court
Ohio Southern U.S. District Court
Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court
Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court
Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court
Oregon U.S. District Court
Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court
Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court
Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court
Puerto Rico U.S. District Court
Rhode Island U.S. District Court
South Carolina U.S. District Court
South Dakota U.S. District Court
Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court
Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court
Tennessee Western U.S. District Court
Texas Eastern U.S. District Court
Texas Northern U.S. District Court
Texas Southern U.S. District Court
Texas Western U.S. District Court
Utah U.S. District Court
Vermont U.S. District Court
Virgin Islands U.S. District Court
Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court
Virginia Western U.S. District Court
Washington Eastern U.S. District Court
Washington Western U.S. District Court
West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court
West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court
Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court
Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court
Wyoming U.S. District Court
Louisiana U.S. District Court
Washington U.S. District Court
West Virginia U.S. District Court
Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court
South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court
South Carolina Western U.S. District Court
Alabama U.S. District Court
U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone
Georgia U.S. District Court
Illinois U.S. District Court
Indiana U.S. District Court
Iowa U.S. District Court
Michigan U.S. District Court
Mississippi U.S. District Court
Missouri U.S. District Court
New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court)
New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court)
New York U.S. District Court
North Carolina U.S. District Court
Ohio U.S. District Court
Pennsylvania U.S. District Court
Tennessee U.S. District Court
Texas U.S. District Court
Virginia U.S. District Court
Norfolk U.S. District Court
Wisconsin U.S. District Court
Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court
New Jersey U.S. District Court
California U.S. District Court
Florida U.S. District Court
Arkansas U.S. District Court
District of Orleans U.S. District Court
State Supreme Court
State Appellate Court
State Trial Court
Eastern Circuit (of the United States)
Middle Circuit (of the United States)
Southern Circuit (of the United States)
Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama
Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas
California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California
Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut
Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware
Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida
Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia
Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois
Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana
Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa
Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas
Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky
Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana
Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine
Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland
Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts
Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan
Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota
Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi
Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri
Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada
New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire
New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey
New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York
North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina
Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio
Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon
Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania
Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island
South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina
Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee
Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas
Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont
Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia
West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia
Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin
Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming
Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska
Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado
Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington
Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho
Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana
Utah U.S. Circuit

Answer: 64