# Air Terminal Services, Inc. v. The United States

> United States Court of Claims · April 17, 1964 · 330 F.2d 974

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9449991

## Case

- **Full name:** AIR TERMINAL SERVICES, INC. v. the UNITED STATES
- **Court:** United States Court of Claims
- **Decided:** April 17, 1964
- **Citations:** 330 F.2d 974; 165 Ct. Cl. 525; 1964 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 88
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Whitaker
- **Judges:** Jones, Whitaker, Laramore, Durfee, Davis
- **Cited by:** 20 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9449991

## Opinion text

WHITAKER, Judge
(dissenting) :
This is a close case, but I rebel against the idea of the Government’s making money out of the renting of additional parking spaces, in competition with plaintiff. Especially so, since these spaces were much more convenient to the terminal building and much cheaper than the price plaintiff was, under its contract, permitted to charge. . Not only did the Government enter into competition with its lessee, but also it was unfair competition. No one would park his car in plaintiff’s lots if one of these metered spaces was available.
When the street in front of the entrance to the Washington National Airport Terminal Building was enlarged, more parking places became available. What were the airport authorities supposed to do with them? (1) They could have prohibited parking altogether. Plaintiff would not complain had this been done, but this would seem to have been contrary to the public interest. (2) They could have put up signs limiting the time for parking. This would have hurt plaintiff financially about as much as what they did do. (3) They could have installed and did install parking meters, which had the advantage of deriving revenue from the restriction of the time for parking.
We have, then, a conflict between the obligation of the Government to refrain from doing anything to detract from the lawful enjoyment by its lessee of the *986 privilege which it had contracted and paid for, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the obligation of the sovereign to facilitate the flow of traffic. (Quite clearly parking facilities are a necessary adjunct of traffic flow; there is no point in driving one’s car to a place unless there are means of disposing of it after one gets there.) How can this conflict be resolved?
Would it not be fair and equitable, both to plaintiff and defendant, to allow plaintiff to recover from defendant whatever net profits it derived from the operation of these additional parking meters? It seems so to me, and I would enter judgment to this effect.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9449991. Public record. Not legal advice.