U.S. Code » Title 49 » Subtitle SUBTITLE VII— AVIATION PROGRAMS › Part PART B— AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AND NOISE › Chapter CHAPTER 475— NOISE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— NOISE ABATEMENT

49 U.S.C. § 47506

Limitations on recovering damages for noise

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)General Limitations.—A person acquiring an interest in property after February 18, 1980, in an area surrounding an airport for which a noise exposure map has been submitted under section 47503 of this title and having actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of the map may recover damages for noise attributable to the airport only if, in addition to any other elements for recovery of damages, the person shows that—(1) after acquiring the interest, there was a significant—(A) change in the type or frequency of aircraft operations at the airport;(B) change in the airport layout;(C) change in flight patterns; or(D) increase in nighttime operations; and(2) the damages resulted from the change or increase.(b)Constructive Knowledge.—Constructive knowledge of the existence of a map under subsection (a) of this section shall be imputed, at a minimum, to a person if—(1) before the person acquired the interest, notice of the existence of the map was published at least 3 times in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the property is located; or(2) the person is given a copy of the map when acquiring the interest.(Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1286.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised

Section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

47506

49 App.:2107.

Feb. 18, 1980, Pub. L. 96–193, § 107, 94 Stat. 53.

In subsection (a)(2), the words “for which recovery is sought have” are omitted as surplus.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1996–2015 · leading case: City of Atlanta v. Watson, 475 S.E.2d 896 (Ga. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Atlanta v. Watson, 475 S.E.2d 896 (Ga. 1996). · cites it 34× “We also find that the Court of Appeals erred in remanding to the trial court the issue of whether a federal statute prohibiting the recovery of damages for airport noise ( 49 U.S.C. § 47506 ) is applicable to this matter.”
Admasu v. Port of Seattle, 340 P.3d 873 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “¶6 The Port brought its second motion for summary judgment against 111 plaintiffs (NEM Plaintiffs) who purchased their property after the Port published notice of its Federal Aviation Administration-approved noise exposure maps pursuant to the federal Aviation Safety and Noise…”
Town of Hull v. Massachusetts Port Auth., 806 N.E.2d 901 (Mass. 2004). “See 49 U.S.C. § 47506 (2000). Because the judge analyzed the private nuisance issue, we address it.”
Watson v. City of Atlanta, 466 S.E.2d 229 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). “The plaintiffs contend that the court erred in charging the jury on former 49 USC § 2107 (now 49 USC § 47506 ) in this case, arguing that the charge was an incorrect statement of law.”
Kebede Admasu v. Port Of Seattle (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Instead, the parties dispute whether the motion for summary judgment adequately addressed claims for damages caused by other conditions described in the complaint, namely increased vibrations, toxic discharge, and fumes.”
Jimmy & Karen Lewis v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (Tex. App. 2015). “49 U.S.C.A. § 47506 (a) states: A person acquiring an interest in property after February 18, 1980, in an area surrounding an airport for which a noise exposure map has been submitted under .”
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.