Causby v. United States

United States Court of Claims · Property

PropertyTakingsAirspace easementstakingsairspaceavigation easementservitudejust compensation

Facts

The court found that the United States asserted the right to fly airplanes through the airspace above plaintiffs' property at altitudes between 83 feet and 365 feet above the ground. The lower boundary reflected the safe glide angle, and the upper boundary was set at 300 feet above the tallest object on the property, taking account of the statutory declaration that higher airspace was free navigable airspace. Given the location of the property and its actual and probable future use, the court found no real servitude from flights above 365 feet. The flights within the easement taken caused the destruction of plaintiffs' chickens.

Issue

Whether the United States took a compensable easement or servitude in the airspace above plaintiffs' land by flying aircraft between 83 and 365 feet, and whether compensation could also include the destruction of plaintiffs' chickens caused by the exercise of that asserted right. Also, whether flights above 365 feet imposed a compensable servitude on this property.

Rule

Government overflights impose a compensable servitude on land only to the extent they interfere with the owner's possession, enjoyment, or actual and probable future use of the property. Airspace above that level is not compensable where, under the property's situation and use, flights there impose no real servitude. When property, whether real or personal, is destroyed as the natural consequence of the deliberate and intended exercise of an asserted governmental power, the destruction is a taking requiring just compensation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nora Kim owns a one-story pottery studio on the outskirts of Tulsa, Oklahoma. A federal flight program repeatedly routes aircraft over the parcel at 140 to 320 feet above ground, and the government expressly claims a continuing right to use that corridor; flights above that level also occur, but they do not affect any current or realistically anticipated use of the land.

Under the majority's reasoning, which airspace is most likely subject to a compensable servitude?

Explanation. The governing rule is that overflights create a compensable servitude only to the extent the government asserts a right to fly through airspace that interferes with the owner's possession, enjoyment, or actual and probable future use. The majority rejected both unlimited upward ownership and automatic immunity for all navigable airspace. It limited compensation to the specific altitude band that imposed a real servitude on the property under its situation and realistic uses. (Derived from Causby v. United States (n.d.).)