Group_legal_brief_final -...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Legal Brief: Archie J. Sneed V. County of Riverside  1 A case study Sneed V. County of Riverside, California AVIA 4090 – Aviation Law December 7, 2009 A Legal Brief: Archie J. Sneed V. County of Riverside
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Legal Brief: Archie J. Sneed V. County of Riverside  2 Material and Legal Facts: The plaintiff owned 234 acres of land next to Ryan Airport which was owned and operated by Riverside County. The county adopted an ordinance which regulated height standards around the airport. The plaintiff claimed that the ordinance took from him an air navigation easement over approximately 60 acres of his property ranging from 4 feet to 17 feet in height. This ordinance restricted the plaintiff from building structures that would support his thoroughbred race horse breeding and training farm, therefore it lowered the value of his property. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit for inverse condemnation. After the suit was filed, the plaintiff sold the property to defendants Minor who knew of the lawsuit and agreed the proceeds would go to the plaintiff. The Superior Court of Riverside County dismissed the case after sustaining the defendant’s objection that the facts were true, but they were not enough to make an adequate case. The plaintiff then filed an appeal of the decision. It is claimed the fair market value of the property was $550,000 before the ordinance was passed to $225,000 after wards. Sneed filed his claim and it was rejected by the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County. Legal Issues: 1.Did the Superior Court of Riverside County error in sustaining a demurrer to the landowner's complaint for inverse condemnation against the county? 2. Whether California and Riverside County’s local zoning laws were applied correctly allowing for the legal taking from Mr. Sneed, an air navigation easement of approximately 60 acres, ranging in height from 4 to 75 feet without just compensation by exercising Police Power. 3. Was there damage to the value of land caused by navigation within an aviation easement that amounted to a taking within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, California law, and Riverside County local zoning laws?
Background image of page 2
Legal Brief: Archie J. Sneed V. County of Riverside  3 Decision or Holding: The appeals court reversed the decision of the lower court, and found in favor of the
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 7

Group_legal_brief_final -...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online