dude i’m seriously so screwed omg
idk anything about this shit
What do you need, dude. Wife’s a lawyer and I’m a biz law major.
I need to write a amicus…
ugh well basically the government in this case is taking an easement without giving just compensation
the lower court said that it’s not a takings that entitles the owner to just compensation because there hasn’t been an interference with the use and enjoyment of the land
HOWEVER, the judge completely misses the point that granting the government an easement gives it the right to interfere with the use and enjoyment of the land, which would bar a subsequent suit because the government would already have an easement
so, i’m trying to argue that, if the government wants an avigation easement, it needs to pay for it, even if it has yet to interfere with the physical land
So you need to argue that the gov’t doesn’t need an easement or an easement isn’t created because there is an alternative to the use of private air space. Government can strictly allow flight over government land or over non
Also, if you want to justify a need for compensation you have to show a detriment to the property owner, right? That the 3rd party use of this air space violates their use of the land by a. loud noises b. pollution c. danger of accidents d. loss of ability to personally profit from their own land (leasing it to private air companies). e. loss of ability to personally use property (air space) i.e. rocket launchers, personal aircraft, building upward, air balloons, etc.
So the government has to compensate for this loss.
Then again, they can counter by saying that the property sold was limited to 10 feet below the surface and 100 feet above it and that the remainder of the land remains property of the government or other agencies with which they are free to do as they please.
Hope this makes sense. I’m hammered so it sounds like a Supreme Court arguemtn on my end.