Legal Opinion
Goodyear Farms v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 3, 1956No. 15113PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Per curiam
This appeal has two phases: First, a petition for intervention was denied ; second, a motion to amend the answer of certain defendants was disallowed. The complaint was for condemnation of lands. There are two separate claims by different owners joined in the petition to intervene and the motion to amend, respectively. The first is the claim of lands contiguous to the air field that take-offs and landings of four hundred jet planes per day over lands in more or less proximity to the air field will amount to appropriation. We are clear that, if any such right exist as to lands outside the area…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- United States v. Sunset Cemetery Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1943
- R. E. Boyd and Odessa Boyd v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1955
- United States v. FloreaDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1945
- United States v. AhoDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1944
- United States v. Certain Parcels of Land in Fairfax CountyDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1950
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Helena Valley Irrigation District v. State Highway CommissionMontana Supreme Court · 1967
- Lee County v. Charlotte CountyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1965
- Goodyear Farms, a Corporation Adaman Mutual Water Company, a Corporation B. W. Mullins, James H. Sharp, George W. Busey, Carlon H. Hinton and Verna Hinton, His Wife v. United States of America, Goodyear Farms, a Corporation Adaman Mutual Water Company, a Corporation Bill W. Mullins and Ralph Ashby and Grace Ashby, Husband and Wife v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1957