Longmont City Council will take up skydiving noise in General Skydiving Discussions December 28, 2016 All the footnote comment said was that staying under, (or exceeding) the FAA 65 db standard cannot be used as the sole standard for a nuisance in all cases. The general noise standard they did note/confirm was, that to be a nuisance the, " ...noise produced by (X) has to be so offensive, annoying or inconvenient to a degree that a normal person would consider it unreasonable." They noted that this is the statutory standard which is here in Colorado. OK so far, as they simply stated what was already contained in the Colorado statute. Importantly however they continued on, stating that since the City had adopted the Airport Master Plan that DID establish a specific 65db threshold, that in this case it was/is the standard; and stated that the trial court was correct in applying it... This affirms the trial court's legal analysis and her ruling. Fun stuff: They did note the Plaintiffs' sensitivities to airplane noise were greater than those of normal citizens. I read this as a cleverly worded insult, stated in a 'tongue in cheek manner' but worded to be politically correct. They could have come right out and said the Plaintiffs' sensitivities were manufactured for this lawsuit, unreasonable and that the complainants were not normal. They chose the 'gentle landing' wording approach. Pretty funny, actually. In my humble opinion, the Ct Appeals did not have to make a remand/reconsideration of the atty fee award on Respondeat Superior, as there was no award made to plaintiffs. Just because the trial court didn't make comments of the merits of it this issue doesn't warrant a remand. I give them no credit for objectivity on that one. So...atty fees, and the issue itself were sent(remanded) back to the trial court for determination or denial of the Respondeat Superior claim and the atty fees resultant. I think they could have-should have left that one alone. Guess they thought the award of the atty fees on that issue was too mean to Plaintiffs? Respondeat Superior = was (owner personally- or his closely held corporation-Mile Hi), liable for the acts of his contractor/pilots? Still my opinion: The Ct Appeals shouldn't even care since Plaintiffs were awarded no fees or damages. Can't figure out why they sent that non-issue down for determination. In all though, Mile Hi was the clear winner and most of the attys fees were affirmed. It looks to me that the Ct Appeals slapped the Plaintiff's firm down over and over again on the allegations of damages and injuries etc. which were alleged and not proven. Pretty much implied that alleging unprovable-frivolous claims amounts to poor decision making. As I recall, Defendant's appeal atty called it a "shotgun approach". And the Ct Appeals pretty much said so too. More fun stuff: One or two sentence affirmations of the trial court's summary judgement on numerous issues are equivalent to intellectual 'slap downs'. Embarrassing to have an appeals court uses terms like, "..no evidence", "..not meritorious", "..no genuine disputed issue", "no error" over and over. It's like the Ct Appeals graded many of plaintiff's pleading and trial decisions and gave out a bunch of F's. Good victory.