ExperienceExperience Managing PartnerManaging Partner Dunham Group LLCDunham Group LLCJun 1997 – Present · 27 yrs 2 mosJun 1997 to Present · 27 yrs 2 mosRedmond, Washington, United States · On-siteRedmond, Washington, United States · On-site Director GeneralDirector General Airports Council International – ACI WorldAirports Council International – ACI WorldSep 1991 – Jun 1997 · 5
Student Scores Rise After Nearby Subway Is Quieted
By Ari L. Goldman April 26, 1982 Fifteen times during each school day, an IRT subway train would rumble and screech past Public School 98, near the northern tip of Manhattan. In classrooms facing the elevated tracks, all work would stop until the train barreled by. After years of complaints about the disruption, the Transit Authority
Westside Hilltop v. King County
Westside Hilltop v. King County 96 Wn.2d 171 (1981) 634 P.2d 862 WESTSIDE HILLTOP SURVIVAL COMMITTEE, ET AL, Appellants, v. KING COUNTY, ET AL, Respondents. No. 46982-2. The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. October 8, 1981. *172 Roger M. Leed and Jeffrey M. Eustis, for appellants. Norm Maleng, Prosecuting Attorney, and Susan R. Agid,
Justia: Peterson v. Port of Seattle
94 Wn.2d 479 (1980) 618 P.2d 67 TOM E. PETERSEN, ET AL, Appellants, v. THE PORT OF SEATTLE, Respondent. No. 45817. The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. October 9, 1980. As amended by order November 10, 1980. Schweppe, Doolittle, Krug, Tausend & Beezer; by Dexter A. Washburn, Jones, Grey & Bayley, by E. Michele
Petersen v. Port of Seattle
AVIATION NOISE LAW Petersen v. Port of Seattle Cite as: 618 P.2d 67, 94 Wash.2d 479 SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON Tom E. PETERSEN and Ruby Petersen, Appellants, v. The PORT OF SEATTLE, a municipal Corporation, Respondent/Cross-Appellant. No. 45817 Oct. 9, 1980 As Changed Nov. 10, 1980 COUNSEL: Jones, Grey & Bayley, E. Michele
Seattle Times 1980-04-09 pg107 Eastside Airport Proposal in Carnation
...
Seattle Times 1980-04-09 pg 107 Eastside Airport Proposal in Carnation (Lorraine Hine Des Moines Mayor)
...
City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal
In one of the most maddening examples of airport law, the United States argued for reversal (ie. allowing for local airport control) of curfews. The FAA, which had previously supported the ban, adopted a neutral position when the The Department of Transportation, filed a Friend of the Court brief arguing for reversal. Summary Holding that