Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Legal

ISSUE ON PAGE May 15, 2018: The City of Phoenix, the Historic Neighborhood Petitioners and the Federal Aviation Administration jointly submitted this Status Report. May 23, 2018: The FAA has posted an update dated May 24, 2018 announcing the implementation of nine replacement Area Navigation (RNAV) data-sf-ec-immutable=”” Standard Instrument Departure (SID) procedures for aircraft that depart

Admasu v. Port of Seattle

Court of Appeals of Washington,Division 1. Kebede ADMASU, et al., Appellants, v. PORT OF SEATTLE, a Washington municipal corporation, Respondent. No. 70220–3–I. Decided: October 27, 2014 Darrell L. Cochran, Kevin Michael Hastings Pfau Cochran VertetisAmala PLLC, Tacoma, WA, Jason Paul Amala, Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner. Timothy J. Filer, Patrick J.

Court Enforces Avigation Easements, Dismisses Claims Based on Flights on Third Runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

PDF   Date: March 5, 2013 Foster Garvey Newsroom A recent order dismissed claims by 126 property owners against the Port of Seattle. The property owners claimed that noise, vibration, and emissions from aircraft operations increased after the Third Runway at Sea-Tac Airport opened in November 2008. The Port sought dismissal of the claims based on

PORT OF SEATTLE v. Airport Communities Coalition;  Citizens Against Seatac Expansion;  and State of Washington, Department of Ecology, an agency of the State of Washington, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners. (2004)

Supreme Court of Washington,En Banc. PORT OF SEATTLE, a port district of the State of Washington, Petitioner, v. The POLLUTION CONTROL HEARINGS BOARD, an agency of the State of Washington, Respondent, Airport Communities Coalition;  Citizens Against Seatac Expansion;  and State of Washington, Department of Ecology, an agency of the State of Washington, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners. No. 73419-4. Decided:

Seattle Community Council Federation v. FAA 961 F.2d 929

961 F.2d 829 SEATTLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL FEDERATION, a Washington nonprofit corporation, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; Samuel Skinner, Respondents. No. 90-70253. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Jan. 8, 1991. Decided April 9, 1992. Peter J. Eglick and Henryk J. Hiller, Seattle, Washington, for petitioner. Peter R. Steenland, Jr., and J.

CHEVRON, U.S.A., INC., Petitioner, v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., et al. AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE, et al., Petitioners, v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., et al. William D. RUCKELSHAUS, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Petitioner, v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., et al.

467 U.S. 837 104 S.Ct. 2778 81 L.Ed.2d 694 CHEVRON, U.S.A., INC., Petitioner, v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., et al. AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE, et al., Petitioners, v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., et al. William D. RUCKELSHAUS, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Petitioner, v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., et al. Nos. 82-1005,

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

RCW 70.107.010

Purpose. The legislature finds that inadequately controlled noise adversely affects the health, safety and welfare of the people, the value of property, and the quality of the environment. Antinoise measures of the past have not adequately protected against the invasion of these interests by noise. There is a need, therefore, for an expansion of efforts