Court Opinion

ID: 9652122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:18:21.27198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:48.606361
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen:
Even though I join in the majority opinion, I am compelled to observe that it is highly questionable whether a cause of action in equity has been stated.
*266It has been Congress that has, over the years, established a minutely detailed plan both for national and international air commerce which regulates every aspect of air transit. Congressional control begins with a construction of the ground facilities and ends with complete detailed supervision of flight operations, and is applicable to both commercial and private flying. It is not difficult to imagine the confusion and danger that would result from local regulation. Thus I can see no cause of action stated against the City of Philadelphia. If, however, this complaint is in the nature of securing recompense for a taking of property, Gardner v. Allegheny County, 393 Pa. 120, 142 A. 2d 187 (1958), succinctly holds that equity does not have jurisdiction to determine that there was a taking of property or to assess the damages resulting from a taking, if one has occurred. Griggs v. Allegheny County, 369 U.S. 84, 7 L. Ed. 2d 585 (1962), would support an action for Eminent Domain if the evidence demonstrated that there was a taking in the constitutional sense and would impose liability on the City of Philadelphia unless Congress has since legislated differently.
If the parties here do proceed in Eminent Domain an interesting situation develops, since the Eminent Domain Code requires such action to be instituted in the county in which the property is located; but since the condemnor here would be the City of Philadelphia, Buie 2103(b) would require the action to be brought in Philadelphia County.