How have the courts interpreted section 1239.3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and what are the implications of that section?

With this background examination can proceed of the city's contention [13 Cal.App.3d 764] that the trial court erred in ruling and in instructing the jury that the city was taking more than a clearance easement, and in permitting evidence of the effect of flights through the overlying airspace on the value of the landowners' properties. (Cf. United States v. Brondum, supra, 272 F.2d 642, 643, fn. 1.) It may have been technically incorrect to rule and to instruct that the city was acquiring an easement under the provisions of section 1239.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the absence of reference to that section in the ordinance of intention or in the complaint. Nevertheless, under applicable rules governing severance damages the landowners were entitled to recover for the diminution in the value of their remaining properties from the use of the airspace condemned--the area between the runway 9R clear zone approach surface and the ordinary navigable airspace--by overflights taking off from and approaching the airport.