holding that two airline operators failed to assert a viable takings claim because they did not own a way of necessity by air, and therefore asserted entitlement to compensation based solely on a claim to consequential damages
How later courts described this case
- holding that two airline operators failed to assert a viable takings claim because they did not own a way of necessity by air, and therefore asserted entitlement to compensation based solely on a claim to consequential damages
- declaring that Forest Service’s decision to cut off all access to a permit site that was required to operate a public resort is a taking
- finding that when an Executive Order cuts off all reasonable access to plaintiffs’ remote resorts, which was formerly accessible by airplane, a regulatory taking had occurred
- declaring that Forest Service’s decision to cut off all access *149 to a permit site that was required to operate a public resort is a taking
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PER CURIAM.
This is an action by the plaintiffs for the taking of their property as a result of the proclamation of Executive Order No. 10092, dated December 17, 1949, which banned and prohibited travel by air below 4,000 feet over the roadless areas of the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota.
This ease was referred by the court, pursuant to Rule 45(a), 28 U.S.C.A., to Trial Commissioner C. Murray Bernhardt, with directions to make findings of fact and recommendations for conclusions of law which he has done in his report filed September 8, 1958.
The court, having considered the evidence, the briefs and argument of counsel, adopts the findings and opinion of the Trial Commissioner with slight modifications.
The plaintiffs, Zupancich and Skala, are entitled to recover just compensation in the respective amounts of $25,000 and $30,000, with interest thereon at four percent per annum from January 1, 1952, to date of payment as part of just compensation, and judgment will be entered to that effect. The petition as to the other plaintiff in case No. 421-55 will be dismissed, and the petition in case No. 480-55 will also be dismissed.
It is so ordered.