Opinion ID: 2462808
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: standard for taking

Text: Concluding that an allegation of direct overflight is not required does not end the inquiry. We must further delineate the standard that is required to be applied by juries in determining whether a compensable taking has occurred. In the context of airport cases, the Oregon Supreme Court followed up its 1963 decision in Thornburg by specifically dealing with that issue, concluding that [t]he proper test to determine whether there has been a compensable invasion of the individual's property rights in a case of this kind is whether the interference with use and enjoyment is sufficiently direct, sufficiently peculiar, and of sufficient magnitude to support a conclusion that the interference has reduced the fair market value of the plaintiff's land by a sum certain in money. If so, justice as between the state and the citizen requires the burden imposed to be borne by the public and not by the individual alone. Thornburg v. Port of Portland, 244 Or. 69, 415 P.2d 750, 752 (1966) (citing Batten, 306 F.2d at 587 (Murrah, C.J., dissenting)). The proper test was characterized by the Minnesota Supreme Court as one which would give relief to any property owner who can show a direct and substantial invasion of his property rights of such a magnitude he is deprived of the practical enjoyment of the property and that such invasion results in a definite and measurable diminution of the market value of the property. Alevizos, 216 N.W.2d at 662. The Minnesota Court noted that to justify an award of compensation the invasion of property rights must be of more than an occasional nature; the invasions must be repeated and aggravated. Id. After reviewing our prior decisions and the above authorities, which we find persuasive, we hold that to establish a prima facie cause of action for inverse condemnation, a plaintiff must allege a direct and substantial interference with the beneficial use and enjoyment of the property at issue. [4] The interference must be repeated and not just occasional. Moreover, the interference must peculiarly affect the property at issue and result in a loss of market value. In other words, the interference must be greater than, or different from, that suffered by the general public as a whole. If the elements of the cause of action are alleged and proven, the public, and not the individual, properly assumes the burden of the cost of improvements that benefit the general public.