case brief

case brief

There is absolutely no reason the city of San Francisco should be able to get away with this. Our client Titleist bought the Transamerica Pyramid with the intentions of adding on to it and remodeling to make it a better fit for the Titleist Corporation. To tell my client that they cannot utilize the building the original way they intended to after purchase is definitely violating the 5th amendment.   Keeping a building the same shape for the view of people does not qualify as a public use nor should it. I believe that since my client can not add to the building with the intentions they had previously to purchasing the building that they are entitled to just compensation. And their just compensation should   be no less then one years projected income of 65 million dollars.

If you want to take a look back at the cases in the past I assure you that Titleist deserves their compensation for the money they will be losing out on. If you look at the case of Causby Verses U.S. Causby did not have any of his land physically taken from him. The fact was the US purchased land next to his that diminished the value of his land due to fighter jets flying so low to his property. Causby could no longer use his land as a farm because every time the fighter jets would fly by his house the chickens would go crazy and some would even run into things causing their own death. The court ruled in Causby’s favor   because he could no longer use the land the way he previously did. Like Titleist   can not use the Transamerica pyramid the original way they had intended prior to purchase.   The supreme court decided that if the land owner is to have full enjoyment of his property then he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Which I feel the Golf ball on the Tee that Titleist wants to create is in their immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere there for the city is violating the 5th amendment.

There is another case we could take a look...