Abstract
Until states and municipalities assumed some responsibility for the abatement of noise, courts provided remedies on a case-by-case basis by awarding damages to the private property owner or enjoining the continuance of the noise nuisance. Close to the private nuisance are. the theories of trespass, assault, and “taking” (the exercise of eminent domain by inverse condemnation or easement). Springing from this basic common law action is the remedy of public nuisance municipal ordinances, which take the additional step of striking at the source of noise itself. In this paper we discuss the effectiveness of municipal noise ordinances based on the private nuisance concept, and regulations based on zoning, tax incentives, and outright prohibition. Also related are our opinions of notably favorable and unfavorable enforcement procedures in the San Francisco, Chicago, New York City, Palo Alto, and the League of California Model Municipal Noise Ordinances.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
