With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". However, provided that the aggregation of lost value for separate areas accurately reflects the diminution in value to all of the condemnee’s tract, it is unclear how such an approach is inherently unreliable or unfair. The Government cites no authority for its suggestion that a partial taking is assumed to affect the entirety of a condemnee’s tract on a uniform basis. To the contrary, such a notion seems artificial, particularly where, as here, the land taken is relatively small in area and fronts on a roadway while the remainder is sufficiently large that portions might have different characteristics relative to value and the taking might be expected to have less impact on more distant areas. Cf. United States v. 478.34 Acres of Land, Tract No. 400, 578 F.2d 156, 159 (6th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, the drafters of the Model Eminent

A: recognizing that the nexus between the place to be searched and the items to be seized may be established by the nature of the item and the normal inferences of where one would likely keep such evidence internal quotation marks omitted
B: holding that an employer violates the nlra when it fails to provide information that is needed by the bargaining representative for the proper performance of its duties internal quotation marks omitted
C: holding that erroneous admission of evidence was harmless where it had no substantial and injurious effect or influence on the jury verdict judged in relation to the total evidence on the issue in question internal quotation marks omitted
D: holding that although the lower court had properly excluded evidence that the whole farm or a substantial portion of it could be subdivided in the near future there was sufficient evidence that the property was adaptable and needed or likely to be needed in the reasonably near future for home site development along the road internal quotation marks and citation omitted
D.