Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 84 F.2d 755
Tags: Property
tl;dr:
The court held that a landowner does not have the right to prevent someone from traversing the airspace above his land.Video Summary
Case Summary
In the 1936 case Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport, Hinman sued two airlines, Pacific Air Transport and United Air Lines Transport Corporation, accusing them of trespassing onto his airspace above his land in Burbank, California. He believed he owned at least 150 feet of airspace above his property and that the airlines frequently flew below that altitude without permission. The case went to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit after a federal district court dismissed Hinman's case.
The appeals court agreed with the lower court's decision by applying the common law rule stating that landowners only own airspace they can utilize in relation to their property. Ownership of airspace isn't fixed and depends on the landowner's needs. The court also found that flying over someone's land isn't trespassing unless it causes harm to their property. Since Hinman didn't provide evidence of actual damage caused by the low-flying planes, the court concluded his case didn't warrant injunctive relief or damages.
This case is significant as it shows how courts choose jurisdiction and apply different laws in diversity cases based on the specifics of each situation. It also illustrates how courts interpret and apply civil procedure rules, like Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses dismissing cases that fail to state a valid claim.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The case involves two appeals brought by the appellants against Pacific Air Transport and United Air Lines Transport Corporation regarding the rights of a landowner in relation to aircraft flying over their land. The appellants claim ownership and possession of the airspace above their land up to an altitude of at least 150 feet. The defendants operate a commercial airline and allegedly trespassed on the appellants' property by flying aircraft through their airspace at altitudes less than 100 feet above the surface. The lower court sustained motions to dismiss filed by the defendants in both cases, which the appellants have appealed. The court ultimately rejects the ad coelum doctrine, stating that it was never the law and could raise constitutional concerns. The appellants' claim of absolute and present title to all the space above their land to an indefinite height is not supported by law or common sense.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.