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
Pfau Cochran third runway lawsuit.com post card 11/10/2011
City Of Des Moines 401 v. Puget Sound Regional Council
Court of Appeals of Washington,Division 1. The CITY OF DES MOINES, The City of Burien, The City of Federal Way, The City of Normandy Park, The City of Tukwila, Highline School District No. 401, and The Airport Communities Coalition, Appellants, v. The PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL, The Executive Board of the Puget Sound Regional Council,
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
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