FindLaw | Legal News & Information

High Court Upholds $16M Award to Nevada Landowner

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to review a Nevada state court's decision that height restrictions within the approach zone of a Las Vegas airport constituted a "taking" of airspace above private land, upholding a $16.6 million verdict for a landowner who said the restrictions affected the development of the site.

The high court refused to review the petition for writ of certiorari filed by McCarran International Airport and its owner, Clark County, Nev.

McCarran and the county lost a suit brought by Steve Sisolak, who claimed various height-restriction ordinances issued by the county limited the development of his 10 vacant acres and impeded his ability to sell the land.

In addition to challenging the height restrictions, Sisolak said low and frequent flights over his land from McCarran devalued the property by subjecting it to noise, dust and fumes, which constituted a compensable taking.

A state court jury awarded him $6.5 million for inverse condemnation, and the trial court added costs, attorney fees and interest, bringing the total award to more than $16.6 million.

In an inverse condemnation the landowner seeks to force a government agency to exercise eminent domain and give him fair compensation for land rendered less valuable through the agency's actions.

A divided Nevada Supreme Court upheld the verdict, concluding that Sisolak had a valid property interest in the airspace above his land and that the county ordinances authorized the permanent physical invasion of that airspace.

McCarran and Clark County asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision. They said the state high court incorrectly resolved whether federal law bars recognition of state-law-based ownership of navigable airspace the landowner has not previously used.

The ordinances simply regulate the use of land by setting height restrictions that, if exceeded, trigger a Federal Aviation Administration analysis to determine whether the structure at issue would pose a hazard, they said.

Sisolak argued in response that the Nevada high court relied on the state constitution to conclude that an unconstitutional taking of private property had occurred.

Federal law does not remove state law restrictions on the exercise of zoning power, nor does it defeat any right to compensation under state law, he argued.

Sisolak claimed the U.S. Supreme Court therefore lacked jurisdiction over the issue about a federal constitutional taking because the state court rested its judgment on independent and adequate state law grounds.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the case Feb. 20.