Arko Plumbing Corp. v. Michael P. Rudd, Esq.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiff lacked a cognizable Fifth Amendment property interest in access to navigable airspace
• explaining that a takings claim does not arise in situations in which there is only an \attenuated\ causal link between a plaintiff's injury and governmental actions directed at a third party
• affirming that the property interest in the lease of land for use as a heliport does not include a compensable interest in access to navigable airspace, because “navigable airspace is public property not subject to private ownership.”
• stating that the court does not address the second step “without first identifying a cognizable property interest” (citing Am. Pelagic Fishing Co., L.P. v. United States, 379 F.3d at 1381; and Conti v. United States, 291 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed. Cir.
• noting that regulations prohibited operation of helicopters, of which plaintiff owned none, so plaintiffs “economic injury is not the result of the government taking [plaintiffs] property, but is the more attenuated result of the government’s purported taking of other people’s property”
• stating that the court does not address the second step “without first identifying a cognizable property interest” (citing Am. Pelagic Fishing Co., L.P. v. United States, 379 F.3d at 1381; and Conti v. United States, 291 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed. Cir.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).