United States v. Causby
Encyclopedia
United States v. Causby was an important United States Supreme Court that held that the ancient common law
doctrine of ad coelum
had no legal effect "in the modern world." In the case, Causby sued the United States for trespassing on his land, complaining specifically about how "low-flying military planes caused the plaintiffs' chickens to 'jump up against the side of the chicken house and the walls and burst themselves open and die' . . . The plaintiffs sued the government, arguing that they were entitled to compensation under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment."
, persons who owned real property
owned it "from the depths to the heavens".
Therefore, real estate
traditionally has included all rights to water, oil, gas, and other minerals underground, and over.
are concerned, but it remains as a source of law to this day, or "fundamental to property rights in land.":
The Court did not extend its interpretation to what lies under the ground, just over.
Common law
Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action...
doctrine of ad coelum
Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos
Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos often appearing in the shorter form Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum, omitting et ad inferos "and to hell", is a principle of property law, stating that property holders have rights not only to the plot...
had no legal effect "in the modern world." In the case, Causby sued the United States for trespassing on his land, complaining specifically about how "low-flying military planes caused the plaintiffs' chickens to 'jump up against the side of the chicken house and the walls and burst themselves open and die' . . . The plaintiffs sued the government, arguing that they were entitled to compensation under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment."
Background
Under the common lawCommon law
Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action...
, persons who owned real property
Real property
In English Common Law, real property, real estate, realty, or immovable property is any subset of land that has been legally defined and the improvements to it made by human efforts: any buildings, machinery, wells, dams, ponds, mines, canals, roads, various property rights, and so forth...
owned it "from the depths to the heavens".
Therefore, real estate
Real estate
In general use, esp. North American, 'real estate' is taken to mean "Property consisting of land and the buildings on it, along with its natural resources such as crops, minerals, or water; immovable property of this nature; an interest vested in this; an item of real property; buildings or...
traditionally has included all rights to water, oil, gas, and other minerals underground, and over.
Holding
The United States Supreme Court held in this case that "this doctrine has no place in the modern world," at least as far as air rightsAir rights
Air rights are a type of development right in real estate, referring to the empty space above a property. Generally speaking, owning or renting land or a building gives one the right to use and develop the air rights....
are concerned, but it remains as a source of law to this day, or "fundamental to property rights in land.":
The court's decision, authored by Justice William O. DouglasWilliam O. DouglasWilliam Orville Douglas was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. With a term lasting 36 years and 209 days, he is the longest-serving justice in the history of the Supreme Court...
, could have resolved the case on a narrow ground by simply holding that there was a taking of land because the government's flights affected the land. Justice Douglas did reach that conclusion, but then he went much further and opined on what airspace landowners do and do not own. He wrote that "if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run" . . . Thus, a landowner "owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land," and invasions of that airspace "are in the same category as invasions of the surface."
The Court did not extend its interpretation to what lies under the ground, just over.
See also
- Air rightsAir rightsAir rights are a type of development right in real estate, referring to the empty space above a property. Generally speaking, owning or renting land or a building gives one the right to use and develop the air rights....
- Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferosCuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferosCuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos often appearing in the shorter form Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum, omitting et ad inferos "and to hell", is a principle of property law, stating that property holders have rights not only to the plot...
- Energy lawEnergy lawEnergy laws govern the use and taxation of energy, both renewable and non-renewable. These laws are the primary authorities related to energy...
- List of notable United States Supreme Court cases
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 328
- Property lawProperty lawProperty law is the area of law that governs the various forms of ownership in real property and in personal property, within the common law legal system. In the civil law system, there is a division between movable and immovable property...
- Takings clause