|
NW Iowa | If i can reach them with my shotgun, they are for sure going down.
Anything below 300ft of tallest terrain.
It would hold up in court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby
flights 300 feet (91 m) above the tallest terrain were considered within the public easement declared by Congress,
Edit-
The Court reasoned that while the air is a public highway, property owners have rights to the "immediate reaches" of the airspace above their land. These immediate reaches are essential for the full enjoyment and use of the land, such as erecting buildings or planting trees.
How did the Court address the ancient common law doctrine of *cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelum* ("whoever owns the soil, owns to the heavens")?
The Court acknowledged that this doctrine no longer applies in modern times. However, it emphasized that landowners still retain control over the immediate airspace above their land to the extent necessary for its reasonable use and enjoyment.
How did the Court reconcile modern air travel with private property rights?
The Court acknowledged that navigable airspace above the minimum safe altitude is part of the public domain, but it emphasized that flights below this altitude that interfere with a landowner's use of their property can constitute a taking.
How does *Causby* impact the development of national airspace as a public resource for air traffic?
*Causby* reinforces the idea that airspace above a certain altitude is public and not subject to private ownership claims. However, it places limits on how low aircraft can fly over private property without infringing on property rights.
Edited by Massey1155 1/28/2025 12:53
| |
|
Drone Swarms
