With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". injuries. See Dawmar Partners, Ltd., 267 S.W.3d at 878 (explaining that diminish-éd value must be derived from a constitutionally’cognizable injury); see also Interstate Northborough P'ship v. State, 66 S.W.3d 213, 224 (Tex. 2001) (unsafe access). 9 . The State does not separately challenge McRoberts’s comparables. 10 . The $2.2 million difference between this figure and McRoberts’s $2,609,420.00 dam age opinion thus results from substituting High’s $5.4 million entire property-valuation opinion for McRoberts’s $3.2 million entire property-valuation opinion. 11 . Quite clearly, this is not. an instance of improperly > "blending” dissimilar, value categories to establish support for the jury’s finding. See Callejo v. Brazos Elect. Power Coop., Inc., 755 S.W.2d 73, 74-76 (Tex. 1988) (<HOLDING>). Instead, we merely acknowledge the range of

A: holding that the trial court erred in considering the intent of the parties when the document creating the easement was unambiguous
B: holding that court of appeals erred by considering evidence establishing pretaking value of easement strip in determining legal sufficiency of evidence to support jurys posttaking value of easement strip
C: recognizing that an easement may entitle the easement owner to do acts which were not for the easement would constitute a nuisance
D: holding that permanent easement arising from condemnation of pipeline easement reduced property value by 20
B.