Viewing page 84 of 93

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

and Town and Country, Inc., A Study of the Use of Land Exposed to Aircraft Landing and Takeoff Noise, at 23-27 (NASA Contractor Report, 1966). 

98. Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice, Chap. II (3d Ed. 1965); 58 Am. Jur., Zoning § § 144-24; Note, The Validity of Airport Zoning Ordinances, 1965 Duke Law Jour. 792-93 (1965).

99. United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946). 

100. See footnote 47, supra.

101. United States v. Causy, supra; Griggs v. Allegheny County, 369 U.S. 84 (1962). 

102. See this author's paper entitled Noise Litigation at Public Airports, at p. 117, in the White House Report, especially at pp. 123-128. 

103. E.g., Avery v. United States, 330 F.2d 640 (Ct. Cl. 1964); Batten v. United States, 306 F.2d 580 (10th Cir. 1962), cert. denied 371 U.S. 955 (1963). 

104. Thornburg v. Port of Portland, 233 Ore. 178, 376 P.2d 100 (1962). Although the Supreme Court of Oregon did hold that overflights were not a prerequisite to recovery, on remand the jury found for the defendant Port of Portland. On a subsequent appeal in the Thornburg case, the Supreme Court of Oregon also seems to have modified, to a degree difficult to ascertain, its prior view that the deprivation must be "substantial". Thornburg v. Port of Portland, 9 Av. Cas. 18,248 (June 22, 1966).  

(17)

Transcription Notes:
Added page number