Griggs v. Allegheny County
Headline: Local airport must pay homeowner after low, frequent flights made his house uninhabitable; Court finds county took airspace and orders compensation for the lost use of the property.
Holding: The Court held that Allegheny County, as the owner and operator of the Greater Pittsburgh Airport, effectively took an air easement over a nearby homeowner’s land by low, frequent flights and must pay just compensation.
- Allows homeowners to seek compensation for severe low-altitude flight interference.
- Makes local airport owners liable for airspace takings despite federal approvals.
- May increase costs for localities building or expanding airports despite federal funding.
Summary
Background
A homeowner near the Greater Pittsburgh Airport sued Allegheny County after regular, low-altitude airline flights passed directly over his house. Planes flew as low as 30–300 feet above the home and within 53–153 feet on descent; the glide path left only about 11.36 feet of clearance above the homeowner’s chimney. A Board of Viewers found the flights made the house "undesirable and unbearable" and awarded $12,690. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court split, and the case reached the Justices to decide whether the county had "taken" an air easement that requires compensation.
Reasoning
The Court relied on the earlier Causby decision that extremely low, frequent flights can destroy the use of land and amount to a taking. Although flights complied with federal regulations and the airport’s master plan was approved by federal authorities, the Court held that the county, which designed, owned, and leased the airport and its runways, was the party that acquired the necessary air easement by making the airport operable. The Court rejected the view that the federal government was the taker and emphasized that local authorities who choose and build an airport must secure the property interests needed to operate it. The Supreme Court reversed the state-court judgment and required compensation under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Real world impact
Homeowners living under approach paths may be able to recover for severe, continual low flights that make residences uninhabitable. Local governments that build or operate airports risk liability for airspace takings even when projects follow federal plans and receive federal funds.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Black (joined by Justice Frankfurter) agreed the flights amounted to a taking but argued the United States, not the county, had assumed control of the necessary airspace and should pay, warning this ruling could saddle localities with large costs.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?