Alfonso v. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, No. 19348.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtCAMERON and BELL, Circuit , and CARSWELL
Citation308 F.2d 724
PartiesM. J. ALFONSO et al., Appellants, v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AVIATION AUTHORITY and Najeeb Halaby, Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency, Appellees.
Decision Date02 October 1962
Docket NumberNo. 19348.

308 F.2d 724 (1962)

M. J. ALFONSO et al., Appellants,
v.
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AVIATION AUTHORITY and Najeeb Halaby, Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency, Appellees.

No. 19348.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

October 2, 1962.


308 F.2d 725

John P. Corcoran, Tampa, Fla., for appellants.

T. Paine Kelly, Jr., Don M. Stichter, Asst. U. S. Atty., Tampa, Fla., Ramsey Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., Roger P. Marquis, David D. Hochstein, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., John A. Curtiss, Tampa, Fla., for appellees.

Before CAMERON and BELL, Circuit Judges, and CARSWELL, District Judge.

CAMERON, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the lower court dismissing, for failure to charge that the amount in controversy reached the statutory minimum, the complaint of appellants Alfonso and about two hundred additional property owners (sometimes referred to as plaintiffs); and quashing the purported service of summons on defendant Halaby. Plaintiffs had prayed for relief by declaratory judgment and injunction.

They filed a complaint alleging that each of them owned and lived in a home in Hillsborough County, Florida near the Tampa International Airport and that "each of a specified group of the plaintiffs own sic an interest in a home and has suffered damage to the value of his home in excess of $4,000.00 by virtue of the unlawful taking for aviation purposes * * *." Each of the remaining plaintiffs alleged that he had "suffered damage to the value of his home" in an unspecified amount.

In substance, plaintiffs allege that the expansion of the Tampa International Airport by the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority with the aid of plans and funds furnished by the Federal Aviation Agency, the extension of the runways in the direction of their properties for the take-off and landing of commercial jet passenger aircraft, and the frequent operation of these aircraft to and from the runways at low altitudes over appellants' properties have substantially interfered with their use and enjoyment; and that such actions constitute a taking of their property without payment of just compensation in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

Appellants pray that such actions be declared to be such a deprivation of their property rights, and seek an injunction restraining appellees from using the property as an approach way for the takeoff and landing of jet passenger aircraft until appropriate condemnation proceedings have been instituted to compensate appellants for their alleged losses, and restraining the Administrator from making any further payments to the County Aviation Authority.

Najeeb Halaby, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency was served with a copy of the summons and a copy of the complaint in the District of Columbia. There can be no question of the correctness of the lower court's action in granting the motion to quash the purported service on him. It is established by statute1 and the decisions that the process of the court below could be served only in the State of Florida. The attempted service in Washington, D. C., was ineffective and was properly

308 F.2d 726
quashed. Plaintiffs insist that they are entitled to relief in the nature of that recognized in United States v. Lee, 1882, 106 U.S. 196, 1 S.Ct. 240, 27 L.Ed. 171; Land v. Dollar, 1947, 330 U.S. 731, 67 S. Ct. 1009, 91 L.Ed. 1209; Goltra v. Weeks, 1926, 271 U.S. 536, 46 S.Ct. 613, 70 L.Ed. 1074; Bowdoin v. Malone, 5 Cir., 1960, 284 F.2d 95, rev. 1962, 369 U.S. 643, 82 S.Ct. 980, 8 L.Ed.2d 168, directed toward control of the acts of individuals assuming to act for the United States. But this question is not before us, as the court has not acquired jurisdiction of the person of the appellee Najeeb Halaby, Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency. Jurisdiction of the person of the defendant is essential in an in personam action and without it no relief can be granted against him. Stewart v. United States, 5 Cir., 1960, 242 F.2d 49. Appellants' contentions with respect to venue and other similar jurisdictional questions need not be dealt with

In any event, the recent decision in Griggs v. Allegheny County, 1962, 369 U.S. 84, 82 S.Ct. 531, 7 L.Ed.2d 585, clearly absolves the United States and the Federal Aviation Agency from liability, even if the court should reach the merits of the claim against appellee Halaby.

The Hillsborough County Aviation Authority was properly before the court. As to it, however, it seems clear that the lower court did not have jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action. Such jurisdiction...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 practice notes
  • Zahn v. International Paper Company 8212 888, No. 72
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 17, 1973
    ...the necessity of all appearing as plaintiffs or defendants.' Id., 23.13, p. 2957. 7. Alfonso v. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, 308 F.2d 724 (C.A.5, 1962); Troup v. McCart, 238 F.2d 289 (C.A.5, 1956); Hughes v. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 199 F.2d 295 (C.A.7, 1952); Ames v. Mengel Co.......
  • Town of East Haven v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., Civ. No. 12175.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • January 31, 1968
    ...confronted with the service of process and venue problems previously mentioned. See Alfonso v. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, 308 F.2d 724 (5 Cir. 1962); United Publishing and Printing Corp. v. Horan, 268 F.Supp. 948 (D.Conn.1967); Taft Hotel Corporation v. Housing and Home Finance......
  • Glover v. Midland Mortgage Co. of Oklahoma, Inc., No. CV 98-BU-1211-S.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • December 7, 1998
    ...individual easement across each property owner's land, the matter in controversy). In Alfonso v. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, 308 F.2d 724, 727 (5th Cir. 1962), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the amount in controversy in a suit to enjoin an airport from using expand......
  • U.S. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., Nos. 74-3333
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • September 10, 1976
    ...See also City of Inglewood v. City of Los Angeles, 451 F.2d 948, 953 (9th Cir. 1972); Alfonso v. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, 308 F.2d 724, 726-27 (5th Cir. This analysis produces a similar result here. Although the allottees' claims present common questions of law and fact, thei......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
46 cases
  • Zahn v. International Paper Company 8212 888, No. 72
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 17, 1973
    ...the necessity of all appearing as plaintiffs or defendants.' Id., 23.13, p. 2957. 7. Alfonso v. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, 308 F.2d 724 (C.A.5, 1962); Troup v. McCart, 238 F.2d 289 (C.A.5, 1956); Hughes v. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 199 F.2d 295 (C.A.7, 1952); Ames v. Mengel Co.......
  • Town of East Haven v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., Civ. No. 12175.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • January 31, 1968
    ...confronted with the service of process and venue problems previously mentioned. See Alfonso v. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, 308 F.2d 724 (5 Cir. 1962); United Publishing and Printing Corp. v. Horan, 268 F.Supp. 948 (D.Conn.1967); Taft Hotel Corporation v. Housing and Home Finance......
  • Glover v. Midland Mortgage Co. of Oklahoma, Inc., No. CV 98-BU-1211-S.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • December 7, 1998
    ...individual easement across each property owner's land, the matter in controversy). In Alfonso v. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, 308 F.2d 724, 727 (5th Cir. 1962), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the amount in controversy in a suit to enjoin an airport from using expand......
  • U.S. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., Nos. 74-3333
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • September 10, 1976
    ...See also City of Inglewood v. City of Los Angeles, 451 F.2d 948, 953 (9th Cir. 1972); Alfonso v. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, 308 F.2d 724, 726-27 (5th Cir. This analysis produces a similar result here. Although the allottees' claims present common questions of law and fact, thei......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT