Case STudy
Many airports are located in areas populated by people. Most people dislike the constant noise of the aircraft, but deal with it anyway. However, sometimes the noise can be too much for some people and action will be taken. In some extreme cases, a major question becomes involved. Does the flight of aircraft over the property of another constitute a taking? Thomas Lee Causby and his wife were proud owners of a 2.8-acre chicken farm that happened to lie under the approach path of a military airfield near Greensboro, North Carolina. They claimed that the noise level and glaring lights during the nighttime interfered drastically with the normal use of their property. Their sleep was disturbed as well as their chickens. Unfortunately, they had to give up their chicken business. Six to ten chickens would suffer death each day because the noise would scare them, and they flew into walls. A total of 150 chickens suffered unfortunate deaths because of this. Then, the Causbys decided to take action. They submitted a claim to the Federal Government for the loss of their property. What started out as a simple claim, finally led to a Supreme Court ruling. The government's defense argued that there was no taking because the government had
The Causbys use of their land presupposes the use of some of the adjacent airspace. Unauthorized use of this airspace can affect the uses of the land below. The court's opinion indicates that something as simple as flight over land does not constitute a taking, but must be attended by something else such as noise or glare. The court found that flights over private land are not a taking unless flown so low and so frequently as to be a direct interference with enjoyment as well as use of the land. Upon reaching Supreme Court, the court made an analysis of the airspace and whether or not the flights were within legal navigable airspace. The minimum navigable airspace defined by congress consisted of three hundred, five hundred and one thousand foot flight levels. Despite the fact that the Civil Aeronautics Authority had been given full authority to submit air traffic rules, the glide path did not meet the minimum safe altitude of flight. Congress had defined navigable airspace only in terms of the minimum safe altitude of flight. The airport's approach slope was not considered to be the downward reach of the minimum prescribed altitudes. In the closing arguments of the case, Justice Black stated that the court's findings were, "an opening wedge for an unwarranted judicial interference with the power of congress to
Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, Civil Aeronautics, Supreme Court's, North Carolina, Justice Black's, Justice Black, Aeronautics Authority, , Lee Causby, United Congress, navigable airspace, supreme court, constitute taking, safe altitude flight, civil aeronautics, court's opinion, congress power, power congress, altitude flight, united congress, minimum safe altitude, safe altitude,
Approximate Word count = 893
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)
|