# Opposition Brief — Goodspeed Airport, LLC v. Ventres (No. 05-1088)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0868%3A3

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 2006

## Text

6

this case, in this case that we had here, we had
the property right to go onto that property and
clear the trees.

What I’m saying is we had that property
right but, yet, the appellees are saying, you still
needed to get permission from the Inland-
Wetland Commission to remove those trees, and
we're going to punish you under CEPA for remov-
ing those trees.

Our position is when you have the property
right to go do the work, then you cannot have lo-
cal interference or state interference with that ac-
tivity.

That’s our position, Your Honor.

JUSTICE BORDEN: So your argument for
federal preemption, I’m not sure I understand its
relation to the easement.

It seems to me if your pre-emption argument
is correct, it’s correct irrespective of whether you
had an easement to do that. Isn’t that so?

MR. BASHAW: Well, let me give you an-
other example, Your Honor.

JUSTICE BORDEN: But I don’t under-
stand how — I thought if you have federal pre-
emption because this is airspace, under federal
pre-emption local laws are preempted, so even if
this had happened in the 14th year instead of the

7

— well the 16th year’ so you didn’t have an ease-
ment by prescription — your federal pre-emption
argument would be the same, wouldn’t it?

MR. BASHAW: Well, igain, Your Honor, I
think still pre-emption — the whole point of pre-
emption is if I have the right to remove the trees.

The airport itself, the airport property itself
which is located in a flood plain, all right, the
Inland-Wetlands position is I have to go and get
their permission to remove the trees that are on
my own property.

I could get punished under CEPA, my client
could get punished under CEPA for removing
those trees on his own property. That’s what's
pre-empted. You can’t let local laws affect the
airport’s ability to maintain clear space around
its airport when it has the property right to do so.

I do not claim —

JUSTICE BORDEN: So, then, are you say-
ing that your pre-emption argument rests on the
validity of the Trial Court’s findings of the pre-
scriptive easement? i

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT

rtteoncintsd ety cen
APPENDIX
dcundeileeeeiaaaaiente ¢ site

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0868%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.