Document: 379 U.S. 487 85 S.Ct. 493 13 L.Ed.2d 439 Nick JANKOVICH and Paul Jankovich, Co-Partners, doing business as Calumet Aviation Company, Petitioners,v.INDIANA TOLL ROAD COMMISSION. No. 60. Argued Dec. 10, 1964. Decided Jan. 18, 1965. Bernard Dunau, Washington, D.C., for petitioners. Hugh B. Cox, respondent. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Pursuant to a 20-year lease with City Gary, Indiana, petitioners are operators Gary Municipal Airport, one airports included in National Airport Plan. They seek review decision invalidating city's airport zoning ordinance, which, regard buildings other structures immediate vicinity airport, prescribes height limitations based upon 40-to-1 glide angle approaching aircraft (i.e., at distance 40 feet from end planned runway, may not exceed foot height). After passage respondent, Indiana Toll Road Commission, constructed toll road parallel south side 443 runway. Contending that location ordinance maximum 18.08 above surrounding land respondent's (which is raised 29.8 surface) violates brought suit courts injunctive relief damages. Although it refused grant an injunction, trial court awarded damages $164,000 costs. That judgment was reversed by Supreme Court which concluded 'the purported authorize unlawful unconstitutional appropriation property rights without payment compensation.' 244 Ind. 574, 584, 193 N.E.2d 237, 242. Because appeared case involved validity regulations under Fourteenth Amendment Constitution United States therefore presented important questions affecting Plan previously considered this Court, we granted certiorari. 377 942, 84 1352. 2 Respondent suggests, however, jurisdiction because on independent adequate state ground. It undoubtedly 3 "the settled rule where rests two grounds, federal nonfederal character, our fails if ground support judgment.' Fox Film Corp. v. Miller, 296 207, 210, 56 183, 184, 80 L.Ed. 158.' Cramp Board Public Instruction, 368 278, 281, 82 275, 277, 7 285. 4 As have respondent correct its contention sought be reviewed supported ground, dismiss writ certiorari improvidently granted. 5 In relied just compensation requirement well Due Process Clause Amendment. The stated issue whether purport(s) effect taking private public use violation provisions Article 1, § 21 Constitution1 States.' Ind., 577, N.E.2d, 238. resolving issue, quite understandably, did analyze separately but them together. From fact would us conclude decision—invalidity Art. 21, Constitution—'is so interwoven matter * *.' Enterprise Irrig. District Canal Co., 243 157, 164, 37 318, 321, 61 644 (dictum). (Emphasis added.) We cannot agree. 6 Quoting both citing Pennsylvania Coal Co. Mahon, 260 393, 43 158, 67 322, own decisions, General Outdoor Advertising Indianapolis, 202 85, 172 N.W. 309, 72 A.L.R. 453 (1930), began analysis proposition taken compensation. Two issues were singled out determinative consideration violated constitutional protection: '(1) Whether air space constitutionally protected right, (2) instant there has been proscribed taking.' 578, 239. holding landowners interest airspace their land, first discussed statute, Acts 1927, c. 43, 3, Burns' Ind.Stat.Ann. 14—103 (1950 Repl.) ('The ownership lands waters declared vested several owners surface beneath, *'), prior interpretation law, Capitol Airways, Inc. Indianapolis P. & L. 215 462, 466, 18 776, 778 (1939) (airport operator no right utility whose power line obstructs flight into airport). addition, cited cases low altitude overflights constitute easement requiring Constitution. Griggs Allegheny County, 369 84, 531, 585; Causby, 328 256, 66 1062, 90 1206. But nothing court's suggests conclusion '(i)n light authorities reasonable ordinary compensation,' 581, 240, flows rather than source. Indeed, organization language indicates that, least, law equal decision. 8 discussion second question—whether effects taking, opposed regulation police power—similarly interlaces decisions courts. Again intimation entails 'an 242, less forcefully 9 such circumstances, even though relies similar State Federal Constitutions, provision held provide depriving judgment. New York Central Savings Bank, 306 661, 59 790, 83 1058, explained Minnesota Tea 309 551, 556—557, 60 676, 679, 92; Lynch People ex rel. Pierson, 293 52, 55 16, 79 191. This like those lower whole 'leaves impression probably felt constrained (decisions applying Amendment),' supra, 554—555, 678 or 'because compulsion enunciated hold,' Missouri Southern R. Mayfield, 340 5, 71 95 result grounds 'so unable law,' Tax Comm'n Utah Van Cott, 511, 514, 605, 606, 950. See also Perkins Benguet Mining 342 437, 443, 448—449, 413, 417, 419—420, 96 485; supra. Under must regarded decision, hold. 10 Petitioners nevertheless contend inconsistent policy Act, Stat. 170, amended, 49 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. (1958 ed. Supp. V), founders Supremacy Clause.2 premises underlying petitioners' argument Act predicated determination Congress essential assure compatible prohibitive cost signifies total nullification zoning. think premise unfounded. had before establish land. recognized upheld exercise 'where owner merely restricted enjoyment his property,' 240—241, mere regulation—was effected here attempted, consideration, take appropriate ordinarily usable adjacent 582, 241. read certainly does portent wholesale invalidation all laws. And substantial claim can made intended preclude application present case. On March 11 last year indicate furthering when amended require additional condition approval project seeking aid that: '(4) action, including adoption laws, will taken, extent reasonable, restrict activities purposes normal operations landing take-off aircraft.' P.L. 88—280, 1964 U.S.Code Cong. Adm.News, p. 188. 12 requirement, presently implemented Agency obtaining assurance sponsor he prevent construction obstructions navigation 'either acquisition retention easements interests enforcement regulations.' Form FAA—1624, Part III 7, Sponsor Assurances. amounts expended acquire 'land therein through space' among allowable costs' recompensed 177, 1112(a)(2) ed., V). Appearing amicus curiae, affirms '(t)here basis removes restrictions defeats any congressional embodied Act.3 dismissed 14 ordered. 15 Writ dismissed. 16 STEWART, whom BLACK joins, dissenting. 17 precedents, I find nowhere clear indication ultimate Constitution, both. Therefore, posture identical should, there, vacate remand cause further proceedings. 'It indulge needless dissertations law. fundamental left free unfettered interpreting constitutions. equally ambiguous obscure adjudications do stand barriers constitution action. Intelligent appellate powers compels ask elimination obscurities ambiguities opinions cases. Only then ascertain should invoked. procedure responsibility striking down upholding legislation fairly placed. For course assures issues, argued here, reach adjudication; final arbiters constitution; encroach states. technical nor convenience. touches division authority between importance each. explicitness highest states keep within bounds respective jurisdictions.' 557, 679. Ind.Const.: 'No man's particular services shall demanded, No compensation; nor, except State, assessed tendered.' Petitioners' pre-emption pressed petition separate only bearing adequacy Nor demonstrated quote statement '(t)he government needed acquired condemnation proceedings condemning over adjoining bases decided years recent amendment 48.10 Acres Land, 144 F.Supp. 258 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1956); 4.43 137 567 (D.C.N.D.Tex.1956), assessment Act. These circumstances bar reversal below claim, questionable advance same guise attack need consider problem further, because, text, infra, insubstantial. Needless say, express regarding ordinance.

Category: 8