Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 42-6-102 (2024)
Control of airport hazards is a public purpose
✓ Justia copy: laws through about 2024 (2025 and 2026 sessions missing)
- (a) It is found that an airport hazard endangers the lives and property of users of the airport and of occupants of land in its vicinity, and also, if of the obstruction type, in effect reduces the size of the area available for the landing, taking off and maneuvering of aircraft, thus tending to destroy or impair the utility of the airport and the public investment therein. Accordingly, it is declared that:
- (1) The creation or establishment of an airport hazard is a public nuisance and an injury to the community served by the airport in question;
- (2) It is, therefore, necessary in the interest of the public health, public safety, and general welfare that the creation or establishment of airport hazards be prevented; and
- (3) This should be accomplished, to the extent legally possible, by exercise of the police power, without compensation.
- (b) It is further declared that both the prevention of the creation or establishment of airport hazards and the elimination, removal, alteration, mitigation, or marking and lighting of existing airport hazards are public purposes for which political subdivisions may raise and expend public funds and acquire land or property interests therein.
Acts 1945, ch. 74, § 2; C. Supp. 1950, § 2726.21 (Williams, § 2726.48); T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 42-402.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1
case, 2001–2001 · leading case: Gatlinburg Airport Auth., Inc. v. Ross B. Summitt, No. E2000-02646-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 24, 2001).
Gatlinburg Airport Auth., Inc. v. Ross B. Summitt, No. E2000-02646-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 24, 2001). “” -4- The trial judge concluded that T.C.A. § 42-6-102 “is intended to deal with landowners who build structures or make use of surrounding land subsequent to the establishment of an airport that would create a hazard,”2 and “this is certainly not the case here.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.