—noting that an airport is not a nuisance per se, but that it can be a nuisance if improperly operated

CS Rhyne. NJ LJ 69: 132 Ap 25'46 Tort actions against airport or airplane operators by owners of adjacent property

—the Court affirmed "without prejudice" to a possible new suit disclosing that the plaintiffs' predictions had become veritable.

"On the other hand, even though an airport is not a nuisance per se, it may become or be responsible for one if the airplanes using it cause a nuisance or continuing trespass· In Miles

"Airplanes may be flown at proper heights over the land below and even though there may be noises and annoyances caused thereby, they will be considered `damnum absque injuria'. If planes are flown at such heights as are prescribed by the authorities, as a rule they will not be enjoined. However, airplanes may not land or take off at low altitudes and in such close …

Assuming, however, that some decrease in value would result, this is not in itself sufficient to constitute a nuisance.

—case held that an airport is not a nuisance per se although the manner of its operation may make it so.

Nor is Mr. Justice Black's theory compatible with the zone theory of airspace ownership, which is widely accepted in the United States today and which was followed by the decisions in the Federal courts culminating in the Causby case.

Warsaw: 1880.5 Washington, DC: 2090 Washington National Airport, Washington, DC: 550 Washington--noise legislation: 1987 Waterloo, Iowa, Municipal Airport: 656 Weaton, Minn., Airport: 663 Wesler, JE: p. 302 West Coast Noise Symposium: 191 Wichita, Kansas: 1514 Wilson Committee Report: p. 71; 464, 685, 1611 Wold-Chamberlain Field, Minneapolis-St. Paul …

But it does not follow from the fact that this club or its predecessor has generated noise in the past—and may properly generate some level of noise now—that it may generate noise whenever it wishes and to whatever degree that it wishes.