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