Goodman v. United States
100 Fed. Cl. 289
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- This is a takings case where Goodman sues for compensation for an avigation easement allegedly taken by the United States through low-altitude, frequent overflights at Dobbins Air Reserve Base.
- Dobbins is a multi-unit air installation with Runway 11/29 and an adjunct assault strip Runway 110/290; numerous aircraft types have operated there since the 1990s, including C-130s, F-18s, F-22s, and helicopters.
- Goodman owns property west of Runway 11/29, within the Runway 11 approach zone, burdened by a 1963 avigation easement that requires a 225-foot minimum overflight altitude and preserves an obstacle clearance surface.
- In 2002 the TERPS obstacle clearance slope changed from 50:1 to 34:1; the government thereafter sought new avigation and clearance easements (2008 easement) and filed a direct condemnation action in 2008, depositing funds and transferring title.
- Goodman contends the 2005–2008 overflights permanently interfered with her use and enjoyment, claiming inverse condemnation, while the government contends the claims are untimely and some claims sound in tort.
- The court granted the government’s RCFC 12(c) motion, finding the takings claims untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2501 and dismissible for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Goodman's takings claims accrued within six years prior to suit. | Goodman argues a continuing or post-2003 burden created a timely second taking. | Claim accrual occurred before December 7, 2003; suit filed in 2009 is untimely. | Untimely; six-year limitations bar claims. |
| Whether overflights and related activities constitute a compensable taking. | Frequent, low-altitude overflights (including assault-strip operations) created a permanent avigation easement. | No taking; regulatory/operational activity and mere noise do not amount to a taking within the applicable standard. | Court assesses under overflight-takings standard; ultimately, claims are untimely, and merits not reached. |
| Whether certain claims sound in tort and are outside the Tucker Act/CF claims jurisdiction. | Some nuisance/noise-related assertions fall within inverse condemnation. | Tucker Act jurisdiction does not authorize tort-based challenges; such claims are outside this court. | Claims framed as tort are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the takings claim also time-barred. |
| Whether the 2008 easement and the direct condemnation action preclude inverse-condemnation claims for the same easement. | Inverse condemnation could duplicate compensation for the 2008 easement. | Direct condemnation governs compensation; inverse-condemnation relief is improper for the same property interest. | Inverse-condemnation claim limited to evaluating terms; preclusive to seeking the same easement via inverse condemnation after direct condemnation. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946) (airspace takings require very low and frequent overflights to be a taking)
- Town & Country Motor Hotel, Inc. v. United States, 180 Ct.Cl. 563 (1967) (accrual and substantial burden analysis for avigation easements)
- Davis v. United States, 295 F.2d 931 (Ct.Cl.1961) (second taking can occur with new, heavier aircraft or lower flights)
- Robertson v. United States, 352 F.2d 539 (Ct.Cl.1965) (clearance easement vs avigation easement distinction)
- Speir v. United States, 485 F.2d 643 (Ct.Cl.1973) (temporary taking framework for aerial overflights)
- Boardman v. United States, 376 F.2d 895 (Ct.Cl.1967) (flight patterns and cumulative overflight impacts with six-year limitations context)
- Branning v. United States, 654 F.2d 88 (Ct.Cl.1981) (new aircraft introduction can create second taking)
- Adams v. United States, 680 F.2d 746 (Ct.Cl.1982) (clearance vs avigation easement analytical separation)
- Persyn v. United States, 32 Fed.Cl. 579 (1995) (consideration of overflight noise and fringe impacts in takings analysis)
- Argent v. United States, 124 F.3d 1277 (Fed.Cir.1997) (noise and perturbations as factors in avigation easement cases)
- Wilfong v. United States, 480 F.2d 1326 (Ct.Cl.1973) (permanence requirement for aerial invasions under takings analysis)