Category : Litigation(40)
-
2000-02-25Letter to U.S. Senators Gorton and Murray Regarding Sea-Tac Airport Safety Issues
In February 2000, the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs (RCAA) wrote to U.S. Senators Patty Murray and Slade Gorton urging an investigation into aviation safety concerns at Sea-Tac Airport, following a KIRO-TV news report that revealed hundreds of unreported near-misses, runway incursions, and mechanical problems documented in NASA AMES files. The RCAA argued that these hidden dangers raised serious questions about the Port of Seattle's plans to expand the airport with a third runway. The letter also requested a moratorium on expansion-related construction permits until a full safety investigation — ideally led by the FAA Inspector General — could be completed. -
1999-11-15
City of Des Moines, et al. v. Puget Sound Regional Council, et al.
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, -
1996-03-27Final Decision on Noise Issues – Expert Arbitration Panel’s Review of Sea-Tac International Airport
★In March 1996, an Expert Arbitration Panel reviewed whether the Port of Seattle had met noise reduction requirements set by the Puget Sound Regional Council as a condition for approving a third runway at Sea-Tac International Airport. A majority of the Panel concluded that, despite the Port's extensive noise abatement programs, it had not demonstrated a sufficient reduction in real, on-the-ground noise impacts to satisfy Resolution A-93-03. This decision left the noise condition as the sole remaining hurdle for authorizing the third runway's construction. -
1996-03-27
Final Decision on Noise Issues – Expert Arbitration Panel’s Review of Noise and Demand/System Management Issues at Sea-Tac International Airport
★In March 1996, an Expert Arbitration Panel reviewed whether the Port of Seattle had met noise reduction requirements set by the Puget Sound Regional Council as a condition for approving a third runway at Sea-Tac International Airport. A majority of the Panel concluded that, despite the Port's extensive noise abatement programs, it had not demonstrated a sufficient reduction in real, on-the-ground noise impacts to satisfy Resolution A-93-03. This decision left the noise condition as the sole remaining hurdle for authorizing the third runway's construction. -
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
★ 32In 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 -
1960-01-14
Cheskov v. Port of Seattle
A Landmark Case on Airport Noise, Property Rights, and Limitations. When homeowners living near Seattle-Tacoma International Airport sought compensation for plummeting property values caused by constant aircraft noise, they set the stage for a pivotal 1960 Washington Supreme Court ruling. In *Cheskov v. Port of Seattle*, the court tackled two critical legal questions: Could the Port of Seattle be held liable for property damage caused by airport noise and vibration? And could airlines be held responsible for occasional low-altitude flights over private land? While the court acknowledged that plaintiffs suffered real, substantial property damage, their claims against the Port were ultimately barred by the statute of limitations. Meanwhile, the airlines faced findings of technical trespass — but only nominal damages were awarded. Each of the various opportunities for homeowners has long since been barred by Federal and State statutes.