Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
As such, the status quo is only permission from the FAA (through regulation) is required. However, existing property rights over private property still allow for civil claims of taking when property use is "substantially impaired" by the use of the airspace. [13] The FAA has also reiterated that it has sole authority to regulate this right. [14]
United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision related to ownership of airspace above private property. The United States government claimed a public right to fly over Thomas Lee Causby's farm located near an airport in Greensboro, North Carolina.
At common law, property owners held title to all resources located above, below, or upon their land. Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (Latin for "whoever's is the soil, it is theirs all the way to Heaven and all the way to Hell") [1] is a principle of property law, stating that property holders have rights not only to the plot of land itself, but also the air above and ...
Rumor: The FAA is restricting access to the airspace. Facts: The FAA is not restricting access for recovery operations but is trying to people safe. There has been a 300% increase in air traffic ...
The U.S. Supreme Court in 1946 ruled that private property owners have exclusive rights to the airspace above their land, up to an altitude of 365 feet. [4]In the United States, the air sovereignty mission had been renamed "Air Sovereignty Alert", but in 2011 it was renamed "Aerospace Control Alert."
Airspace [1] is the portion of ... United States v. Causby overturned the common law doctrine that private property rights extend indefinitely upwards, ...
The White House wants Congress to pass legislation that would give greater authority to the federal, state and local governments to address drones that fly in U.S. airspace.
Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] QB 479 is a case in English law in which a plaintiff attempted to sue for trespass when aerial photographs were taken of his property. The case established that a property owner does not have unqualified rights over the airspace above their land.