Opinion ID: 657166
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court

Text: 17 We receive the Connecticut Supreme Court's response to our certification bearing in mind that the highest court of a state has the final word on the meaning of state law. Deeper Life Christian Fellowship, Inc. v. Sobol, 948 F.2d 79, 84 (2d Cir.1991). Thus, we are obligated to apply Connecticut law as determined by the Connecticut Supreme Court. Cf. Home Ins. Co. v. American Home Products Corp., 902 F.2d 1111, 1113 (2d Cir.1990). 18 The Connecticut Supreme Court acknowledged, as had the district court, that the issue of whether an avigation easement may be acquired by prescription is one of first impression in [Connecticut]. 227 Conn. at 501-02, 629 A.2d 1084. However, the Court declined to answer that question, stating that: Because we conclude that the plaintiff did not acquire a prescriptive avigation easement in the circumstances presented, we need not decide whether an avigation easement may ever be acquired by prescription in this state. Id. at 502, 629 A.2d 1084. 19 First, the Connecticut Supreme Court made clear that [p]rescriptive easements are recognized in [Connecticut]. Id. at 501, 629 A.2d 1084 (citing Connecticut General Statutes Sec. 47-37; Klar Crest Realty, Inc. v. Rajon Realty Corp., 190 Conn. 163, 459 A.2d 1021 (1983)). The Court then enumerated the conditions for obtaining a prescriptive easement emphasizing that, under Connecticut law,  '[t]o establish an easement by prescription it is absolutely essential that the use be adverse. It must be such as to give a right of action in favor of the party against whom it has been exercised.'  Id. (citing Whiting v. Gaylord, 66 Conn. 337, 344, 34 A. 85 (1895)). In addition, the party claiming to have acquired an easement by prescription must demonstrate that the use of the property has been 'open, visible, continuous and uninterrupted for fifteen years and made under a claim of right.'  Id. (citations omitted). The Court further noted that Connecticut law refrains from extinguishing or impairing property rights by prescription unless the party claiming to have acquired an easement by prescription has met each of these stringent conditions. Id. 20 The Connecticut Supreme Court decided that the County could not have obtained a prescriptive avigation easement in these circumstances as a matter of law because the County's use of the flight and clearance zones was not adverse. The Court held that the landowners had no right of action against the plaintiff to stop the overflights because federal law prohibits landowners from obtaining injunctive relief against aircraft using the navigable airspace of the United States. Id. 227 Conn. at 502-03, 629 A.2d 1084 (citing City of New Haven, 367 F.Supp. at 1341; Town of East Haven v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 331 F.Supp. 16 (D.Conn.1971), aff'd, 470 F.2d 148 (2d Cir.1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 965, 93 S.Ct. 2144, 36 L.Ed.2d 685 (1973)). The Court noted that federal authorization provides additional grounds for finding that the County's use was not adverse. Id. 227 Conn. at 503 n. 12, 629 A.2d 1084. The Court concluded that [i]n these circumstances, the defendants could not have reclaimed the exclusive use of the airspace above their properties and, therefore, the use of that airspace by the plaintiff can not be considered adverse. Id. at 503, 629 A.2d 1084. 21 The Connecticut Supreme Court also considered the argument that the County's use was adverse because of defendants' right to bring a takings claim pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution under the theory of United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 266, 66 S.Ct. 1062, 1068, 90 L.Ed. 1206 (1946) (recognizing a compensable taking for flights so low and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land) and Griggs v. Allegheny, 369 U.S. 84, 88-89, 82 S.Ct. 531, 533, 7 L.Ed.2d 585 (1962). The Connecticut Court rejected this argument too. The Court noted: Although we doubt that we would ever require a landowner to assert a constitutional takings claim in order to avoid the acquisition of a prescriptive avigation easement, we are satisfied that these defendants were not obliged to do so. Id. Thus, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that, under Connecticut law, the County could not have obtained a prescriptive avigation easement.