Category : Litigation(38)

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:

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,

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.

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,

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

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

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.