Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal (1973) - Revision history

Admin: Admin moved page Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal to Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal (1973)

2019-10-18T08:31:05Z

Admin moved page Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal to Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal (1973)

Admin at 05:15, 17 July 2018

2018-07-17T05:15:16Z

Admin at 05:15, 17 July 2018

2018-07-17T05:15:06Z

Admin at 05:11, 17 July 2018

2018-07-17T05:11:58Z

Admin at 00:14, 3 July 2018

2018-07-03T00:14:22Z

Morgannoel18 at 07:49, 22 October 2017

2017-10-22T07:49:22Z

Admin at 15:27, 28 September 2017

2017-09-28T15:27:18Z

Admin at 15:22, 28 September 2017

2017-09-28T15:22:19Z

Nicole: Created page with "''Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal'' (1973) concerns an ordinance passed by the City of Burbank, California, prohibiting jet aircraft from taking off from the city’s airport..."

2017-01-23T20:24:28Z

Created page with "''Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal'' (1973) concerns an ordinance passed by the City of Burbank, California, prohibiting jet aircraft from taking off from the city’s airport..."

New page

''Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal'' (1973) concerns an ordinance passed by the City of Burbank, California, prohibiting jet aircraft from taking off from the city’s airport between the hours of eleven P.M. and seven A.M. The city enacted the legislation to protect its residents from unwanted noise. A closely divided Supreme Court held the ordinance invalid because Congress had preempted state and local control over aircraft noise by its passage of the 1958 Federal Aviation Act (giving the national government sovereignty over airspace) and the 1972 Noise Control Act (which sets noise emission standards for a wide variety of product categories, and specifically targets aircraft noise and sonic booms). According to Justice William O. Douglas, curfews such as the one enacted by the City of Burbank increase airport congestion, cause a loss of efficiency, and aggravate the noise problem. Therefore, because there is need for efficient control of air traffic, only the Federal Aviation Administration, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency, may regulate the subject of aircraft noise. The pervasive nature of the scheme of federal regulation of aircraft leaves no room for state or local regulation.

==== Robert W. Langran ====

SEE ALSO: [[Commerce among the States]]; [[Hines v. Davidowitz]]; [[Pennsylvania v. Nelson]]; [[Preemption]]; [[Southern Railway Company v. Reid]]; [[Supremacy Clause: Article VI, Clause 2]]

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 |-
 | '''BIBLIOGRAPHY:'''
-William W. Bratton, “The Preemption Doctrine: Shifting Perspectives on Federalism and the Burger Court,” ''Columbia Law Review'' 75, no. 3 (1975): 623–54; William Natbony, “City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc.: Federal Preemption of Aircraft Noise Regulation and the Future of Proprietary Restrictions Comment,” ''New York University Review of Law and Social Change'' 4, no. 1 (1974): 99–114; and R. A. G., Jr., “Shifting Aircraft Noise Liability to the Federal Government,” ''Virginia Law Review'' 61, no. 6 (1975): 1299–1337
+William W. Bratton, “The Preemption Doctrine: Shifting Perspectives on Federalism and the Burger Court,” ''Columbia Law Review'' 75, no. 3 (1975): 623–54; William Natbony, “City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc.: Federal Preemption of Aircraft Noise Regulation and the Future of Proprietary Restrictions Comment,” ''New York University Review of Law and Social Change'' 4, no. 1 (1974): 99–114; and R. A. G., Jr., “Shifting Aircraft Noise Liability to the Federal Government,” ''Virginia Law Review'' 61, no. 6 (1975): 1299–1337.
 |}

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 |-
 | '''BIBLIOGRAPHY:'''
 |}

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:11, 17 July 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	''Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal'' (1973) concerns an ordinance passed by the City of Burbank, California, prohibiting jet aircraft from taking off from the city’s airport between the hours of eleven P.M. and seven A.M. The city enacted the legislation to protect its residents from unwanted noise. A closely divided [[Supreme Court of the United States\|Supreme Court]] held the ordinance invalid because Congress had preempted state and local control over aircraft noise by its passage of the 1958 Federal Aviation Act (giving the national government sovereignty over airspace) and the 1972 Noise Control Act (which sets noise emission standards for a wide variety of product categories, and specifically targets aircraft noise and sonic booms). According to Justice William O. Douglas, curfews such as the one enacted by the City of Burbank increase airport congestion, cause a loss of efficiency, and aggravate the noise problem. Therefore, because there is need for efficient control of air traffic, only the Federal Aviation Administration, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency, may regulate the subject of aircraft noise. The pervasive nature of the scheme of federal regulation of aircraft leaves no room for state or local regulation.		''Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal'' (1973) concerns an ordinance passed by the City of Burbank, California, prohibiting jet aircraft from taking off from the city’s airport between the hours of eleven P.M. and seven A.M. The city enacted the legislation to protect its residents from unwanted noise. A closely divided [[Supreme Court of the United States\|Supreme Court]] held the ordinance invalid because Congress had preempted state and local control over aircraft noise by its passage of the 1958 Federal Aviation Act (giving the national government sovereignty over airspace) and the 1972 Noise Control Act (which sets noise emission standards for a wide variety of product categories, and specifically targets aircraft noise and sonic booms). According to Justice William O. Douglas, curfews such as the one enacted by the City of Burbank increase airport congestion, cause a loss of efficiency, and aggravate the noise problem. Therefore, because there is need for efficient control of air traffic, only the Federal Aviation Administration, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency, may regulate the subject of aircraft noise. The pervasive nature of the scheme of federal regulation of aircraft leaves no room for state or local regulation.
		+
		+	{\| class="wikitable"
		+	\|-
		+	\| '''BIBLIOGRAPHY:'''
		+	\|}

	==== Robert W. Langran ====		==== Robert W. Langran ====

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:14, 3 July 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	''Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal'' (1973) concerns an ordinance passed by the City of Burbank, California, prohibiting jet aircraft from taking off from the city’s airport between the hours of eleven P.M. and seven A.M. The city enacted the legislation to protect its residents from unwanted noise. A closely divided Supreme Court held the ordinance invalid because Congress had preempted state and local control over aircraft noise by its passage of the 1958 Federal Aviation Act (giving the national government sovereignty over airspace) and the 1972 Noise Control Act (which sets noise emission standards for a wide variety of product categories, and specifically targets aircraft noise and sonic booms). According to Justice William O. Douglas, curfews such as the one enacted by the City of Burbank increase airport congestion, cause a loss of efficiency, and aggravate the noise problem. Therefore, because there is need for efficient control of air traffic, only the Federal Aviation Administration, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency, may regulate the subject of aircraft noise. The pervasive nature of the scheme of federal regulation of aircraft leaves no room for state or local regulation.	+	''Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal'' (1973) concerns an ordinance passed by the City of Burbank, California, prohibiting jet aircraft from taking off from the city’s airport between the hours of eleven P.M. and seven A.M. The city enacted the legislation to protect its residents from unwanted noise. A closely divided [[Supreme Court of the United States\|Supreme Court]] held the ordinance invalid because Congress had preempted state and local control over aircraft noise by its passage of the 1958 Federal Aviation Act (giving the national government sovereignty over airspace) and the 1972 Noise Control Act (which sets noise emission standards for a wide variety of product categories, and specifically targets aircraft noise and sonic booms). According to Justice William O. Douglas, curfews such as the one enacted by the City of Burbank increase airport congestion, cause a loss of efficiency, and aggravate the noise problem. Therefore, because there is need for efficient control of air traffic, only the Federal Aviation Administration, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency, may regulate the subject of aircraft noise. The pervasive nature of the scheme of federal regulation of aircraft leaves no room for state or local regulation.

	==== Robert W. Langran ====		==== Robert W. Langran ====

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:27, 28 September 2017
Line 5:		Line 5:
	SEE ALSO: [[Commerce among the States]]; [[Hines v. Davidowitz]]; [[Pennsylvania v. Nelson]]; [[Preemption]]; [[Southern Railway Company v. Reid]]; [[Supremacy Clause: Article VI, Clause 2]]		SEE ALSO: [[Commerce among the States]]; [[Hines v. Davidowitz]]; [[Pennsylvania v. Nelson]]; [[Preemption]]; [[Southern Railway Company v. Reid]]; [[Supremacy Clause: Article VI, Clause 2]]

−	[[Category:~~Political/Historical Figures~~]]	+	[[Category:Supreme Court Cases]]

← Older revision	Revision as of 08:31, 18 October 2019
(No difference)

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 ==== Robert W. Langran ====
 SEE ALSO: [[Commerce among the States]]; [[Hines v. Davidowitz]]; [[Pennsylvania v. Nelson]]; [[Preemption]]; [[Southern Railway Company v. Reid]]; [[Supremacy Clause: Article VI, Clause 2]]
 [[Category:Supreme Court Cases]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:22, 28 September 2017
Line 4:		Line 4:

	SEE ALSO: [[Commerce among the States]]; [[Hines v. Davidowitz]]; [[Pennsylvania v. Nelson]]; [[Preemption]]; [[Southern Railway Company v. Reid]]; [[Supremacy Clause: Article VI, Clause 2]]		SEE ALSO: [[Commerce among the States]]; [[Hines v. Davidowitz]]; [[Pennsylvania v. Nelson]]; [[Preemption]]; [[Southern Railway Company v. Reid]]; [[Supremacy Clause: Article VI, Clause 2]]
		+
		+	[[Category:Political/Historical Figures]]