That's really interesting. As the Wikipedia article notes[1] quoting the decision while the court didn't hold property rights at as specific altitude, in their

That's really interesting. As the Wikipedia article notes[1] quoting the decision while the court didn't hold property rights at as specific altitude, in their language they referred to the height of buildings, trees etc.: > "if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise, buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run" …“The fact that he does not occupy [space] in a physical sense -- by the erection of buildings and the like -- is not material. As we have said, the flight of airplanes, which skim the surface but do not touch it, is as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it." But it's not clear to me that this would apply to drones for a couple of reasons: 1. The question of whether something is considered an easement or not doesn't apply for the drone question. I.e. in the 1946 case bombers were flying by at 83 ft so "buildings could not be erected". Whereas today if if drones were flying past your house at 83 ft and you built a 100 ft building they'd just need to fly over or around it. 2. In the 1946 case the overflights themselves caused enough of a disruption to farming from noise etc. that the farmer went out of business, so the takings clause was invoked. It's unlikely that'll ever become an issue with drones, general noise regulation will handle those sorts of cases. Also, surely there's lots of post-1946 cases on this matter due to the build-outs of airports and growing class B airspace, or has that been handled entirely by buying out property and zoning regulations? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby#Holding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby#Holdin...