Jankovich v. Indiana Toll Road Commission
Headline: Court refuses to review Indiana ruling that airport zoning ordinance took nearby airspace without compensation, leaving the state high court’s decision and effects on nearby landowners intact.
Holding: The Court declined to review the Indiana decision because the state supreme court based its judgment on an independent state constitutional ground finding a taking without compensation, so federal review was barred.
- Leaves Indiana ruling finding a taking without compensation intact for this case.
- Prevents U.S. Supreme Court review because an independent state constitutional ground controlled.
- Affirms federal programs may acquire airspace or easements without displacing state compensation rules.
Summary
Background
The dispute involved the operators of Gary Municipal Airport (under a 20-year lease with the City of Gary) and the Indiana Toll Road Commission. Gary had adopted an airport zoning ordinance limiting heights near a planned runway using a 40-to-1 glide slope. The toll road was built 443 feet from the runway end and was raised 29.8 feet, while the ordinance allowed only about 18.08 feet at that spot. The trial court refused injunctive relief but awarded the airport operator $164,000 in damages; the Indiana Supreme Court reversed, holding the ordinance amounted to a taking without compensation under Indiana law and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Reasoning
The central question before this Court was whether it could review the Indiana Supreme Court’s judgment. The Justices concluded the state court’s decision rested on an independent and adequate state constitutional ground (Article 1, §21 of the Indiana Constitution) and therefore barred federal review. The opinion notes the Indiana court relied on state statute and state precedents as well as federal cases, and that the state ground was not shown to be merely a cover for a federal ruling. The Court also found the petitioners’ argument that federal airport law preempted the state decision insubstantial and observed federal programs allow acquisition of airspace or easements.
Real world impact
As a result, the Indiana high court’s judgment stands in this case and the U.S. Supreme Court did not decide whether the ordinance violated the U.S. Constitution. The opinion also explains that federal airport funding and FAA practice may address obstructions by acquiring airspace or through zoning assurances, but federal law does not automatically cancel state compensation rules.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stewart (joined by Justice Black) dissented, arguing the Indiana opinion was ambiguous about whether it relied on state or federal law and that this Court should have vacated and sent the case back for clarification.
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?