Bifalgorithm post · Property · Initial Look at Exclusion's Limits

Airspace

Airspace (Property · Initial Look at Exclusion's Limits) — "In Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport, landowners sought review of decrees sustaining motions to dismi…

Ideas in this flowchart

  • Landowners’ airspace-rights claims against low-altitude commercial flights in Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport.
  • The landowners sought review of decrees sustaining motions to dismiss their suits.
  • The plaintiffs alleged ownership and possession of 72 1/2 acres of real property.
  • They also claimed a stratum of airspace they could reasonably expect to use or occupy, including at least 150 feet above the surface.
  • The plaintiffs alleged that commercial airlines repeatedly operated aircraft in, across, and through the airspace below 100 feet.
  • The flights allegedly continued despite notice to desist.
  • The plaintiffs characterized the continued flights as unlawful and against their will.
  • The plaintiffs identified two recurring flight courses over the property.
  • They described the courses by their widths, boundaries, and heights above the surface.
  • The defendants allegedly used the courses openly, notoriously, and under a claim of right adverse to the plaintiffs.
Feed/

Airspace

Channel

Property

1 page

"In Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport, landowners sought review of decrees sustaining motions to dismiss suits concerning the rights of a landowner in connection with aircraft flying above the land. The plaintiffs alleged that they owned and possessed 72 1/2 acres of real property together with a stratum of airspace overlying the tract and extending upward to an altitude they could reasonably expect to use or occupy, including an altitude of not less than 150 feet above the surface. They further alleged that commercial airlines repeatedly operated aircraft in, across, and through the airspace at altitudes of less than 100 feet, despite notice to desist, and that the aircraft continued to do so unlawfully and against the plaintiffs’ will. The plaintiffs described two recurring flight courses over the property, including their widths, boundaries, and heights above the surface, and alleged that the defendants used those courses openly, notoriously, and under a claim of right adverse to the plaintiffs."

Flowchart preview
Series cover
👍
0
0 comments0 shares

Sign in to view and post comments.