concurring specially.
At issue in this case are the Landowners’ claims for damages allegedly resulting from the noise generated by the operation of the City’s airport. I concur fully in Division 1, wherein the majority holds that the Court of Appeals erroneously reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the City on the Landowners’ equal protection claim. I also concur fully in Division 3, wherein the majority reverses the holding of the Court of Appeals that the trial court committed an evidentiary error during the trial of Landowners’ inverse condemnation claim. As to Division 2, wherein the majority reverses the Court of Appeals’ remand for a determination by the trial court of the “applicability” of a jury charge on 49 USC § 47506 to the Landowners’ inverse condemnation claim, I concur, but I do not agree with all of the reasoning contained in the majority opinion. Accordingly, I concur specially in the judgment of reversal of the Court of Appeals.
By its terms, 49 USC § 47506 provides that 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 . . . and having actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of the map may recover damages for noise attributable to the airport only if
certain specified criteria are satisfied. A charge on this federal statute was given in this case. After determining that the language of the charge tracked the language of the statute, the Court of Appeals concluded that the charge “was a correct statement of the law.” Watson v. City of Atlanta, 219 Ga. App. 704, 707 (2) (466 SE2d 229) (1995). The Court of Appeals then held that,
[h]owever, the trial court never ruled on the applicability of the charge to this particular case. The record shows that the City argued in its motion for summary judgment that it was immune from damages for noise under the statute. [The Landowners’] response to the motion included the argument that the statute did not preempt their state eminent domain rights. The court denied the motion, finding that issues of fact remained as to the applicability of the statute. Our review of the record and transcript does not show that the question of the applicability of the federal law was ever *195resolved by the court. Thus, we remand this issue to the trial court for a determination of the applicability of the statute to this inverse condemnation action.
Watson v. City of Atlanta, supra at 707 (2).
It is apparent that the applicability of 49 USC § 47506 in this case is a mixed question of law and fact. The legal question is whether or not the federal statute serves to preempt the Landowners’ state inverse condemnation remedy and is, therefore, legally applicable in this case. See Owen v. City of Atlanta, 157 Ga. App. 354 (277 SE2d 338) (1981), aff’d, 248 Ga. 299 (282 SE2d 906) (1981). If the federal statute does preempt the Landowners’ state inverse condemnation remedy, the factual question is whether the criteria for a recovery specified therein have been satisfied by the Landowners in this case. The federal statute does not expressly preempt state legal remedies and, even if state legal remedies are implicitly preempted, the federal statute merely limits claims to cases wherein certain specified criteria are satisfied. Thus, in order for the City to be afforded immunity, the federal statute must implicitly preempt the Landowners’ state inverse condemnation remedy as a matter of law and, as a matter of fact, the Landowners must have failed to satisfy the criteria specified for a recovery under the federal statute. Whether the Landowners’ state inverse condemnation remedy has been implicitly preempted as a matter of law is dependent upon the statutory construction given the federal statute by the courts. Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, _ U. S. _ (115 SC 1483, 131 LE2d 385) (1995); Owen v. City of Atlanta, supra. Any factual conflict in the evidence as to whether the criteria specified for a recovery under the federal statute have been satisfied by Landowners can be resolved only by the trier of fact.
The applicability of 49 USC § 47506 initially was addressed in connection with the City’s motion for summary judgment. The City urged that, as a matter of law, the federal statute implicitly preempted the Landowners’ inverse condemnation claim and that, as a matter of fact, the Landowners failed to satisfy the criteria for a recovery specified under the federal statute. In opposition, the Landowners urged that the federal statute did not implicitly preempt their inverse condemnation claim and that, as a matter of fact, they had satisfied the criteria for a recovery specified under the federal statute. The trial court denied the City’s motion, holding that “issues of fact” remained as to the applicability of 49 USC § 47506 in this case. Contrary to the Court of Appeals, this certainly was a dispositive interlocutory ruling by the trial court. The trial court’s stated reason for the denial of the City’s motion for summary judgment was a clear rejection of the Landowners’ contention that, as a matter of *196law, the federal statute did not afford the City immunity for their inverse condemnation claim and was also a clear rejection of the City’s contention that no genuine issue of material fact remained that the criteria specified for a recovery thereunder had not been satisfied by Landowners.
However, as the majority correctly recognizes, the denial of the City’s motion for summary judgment ultimately is irrelevant, since that ruling is not subject to appellate review in this case. After the denial of the motion for summary judgment, there was a jury trial and the applicable ruling presented for review is the trial court’s giving of a jury charge on 49 USC § 47506. “ After verdict and judgment, it is too late to review a judgment denying a summary judgment, for that judgment becomes moot when the court reviews the evidence upon the trial of the case.’ [Cit.]” Talmadge v. Talmadge, 241 Ga. 609 (1) (247 SE2d 61) (1978). Under OCGA § 5-5-24 (b), the time for determining the applicability of jury charges is prior to argument, not at an earlier hearing on a motion for summary judgment. Contrary to the Court of Appeals’ ruling, the trial court clearly “resolved” the question of the applicability of the federal statute in this case. It is clear that, by electing to give the charge on 49 USC § 47506, the trial court “resolved” to adhere to its initial interlocutory holding that, contrary to the Landowners’ assertion, the federal statute was legally applicable in the case as a matter of law and that, contrary to the City’s assertion, there was sufficient evidence to authorize a jury to find that the criteria specified for a recovery thereunder had been satisfied.
As would be true with the giving of any other jury charge, the applicability of the charge on the federal statute was readily determinable by the Court of Appeals based upon the record before it. The issue of whether 49 USC § 47506 was or was not legally applicable as a federal preemption of state legal remedies was simply a matter of statutory construction. If the federal statute was legally applicable in the case, the issue of whether it was factually applicable so as to preempt the Landowners’ inverse condemnation claim could be resolved by reviewing the transcript of the jury trial for evidence that the criteria specified therein had been satisfied. The review by the Court of Appeals of the jury charge on the federal statute would be conditioned only upon the existence of record of timely objections during the trial to the legal and factual applicability of the charge. Accordingly, the remand by the Court of Appeals for a determination by the trial court of the applicability of 49 USC § 47506 in this inverse condemnation case was erroneous and superfluous. Instead, the Court of Appeals should have addressed on the merits whatever timely objections were raised in the trial court to the giving of the jury charge on that federal statute.
*197Rather than remand to the Court of Appeals for that court to address on the merits the timely objections raised by the Landowners to the giving of the jury charge on the federal statute, the majority itself undertakes to determine the “applicability” of that charge in this case. With regard to the legal applicability of the charge, the majority concludes that the federal statute preempts the Landowners’ state inverse condemnation remedy and cites Adams v. City of Atlanta, 253 Ga. 581 (322 SE2d 730) (1984) in footnote 20 as partial support for that holding. I cannot agree that Adams is support for the proposition that 49 USC § 47506 preempts the Landowners’ state inverse condemnation remedy. That case is authority only for the proposition that federal law and regulations “preempt local control of airspace management, air traffic control, and aircraft noise and emissions. City of Atlanta v. Owen, 248 Ga. 299, [supra]; Owen v. City of Atlanta, 157 Ga. App. 354, [supra]; [cits.].” (Emphasis supplied.) Adams v. City of Atlanta, supra at 581 (1). It does not necessarily follow from a limited federal preemption of local control over airport operations that all state legal remedies for damages suffered as the result of airport operations are thereby preempted. Federal preemption of airport control and immunity from state liability for airport operations are not synonymous legal concepts. Owen v. City of Atlanta, 157 Ga. App., supra at 356.
“[T]he fact that the location and altitude of landing operations is subject to Federal control does not in any manner determine whether the rights of a surface owner have been violated by such flights. . . . The layout of the field may be entirely proper from the standpoint of air safety and air traffic regulations, and may still constitute a nuisance as to a property owner contiguous thereto. . . .” [Cit.]
Owen v. City of Atlanta, 157 Ga. App., supra at 357. Nevertheless, an implicit preemption of state law by federal law does result “either when the scope of a statute indicates that Congress intended a federal law to occupy a field exclusively, [cit.], or when state law is in actual conflict with federal law.” Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 115 SC, supra at 1487 (IV). Because Adams is not controlling, the issue of whether the Aviation Safety Noise Abatement Act of 1979, of which 49 USC § 47506 is a part, implicitly preempts a state inverse condemnation claim is one of first impression in this state. However, it is clear that the federal statute does implicitly preempt the Landowners’ state inverse condemnation claim to the extent that the viability of their claim is dependent upon their satisfaction of the criteria specified for a recovery thereunder. 49 USC § 47506 is couched in terms which limit a recovery of damages attributable to airport noise *198to only those who can meet the specified criteria. Compare Owen v. City of Atlanta, supra. Moreover, nothing in the federal statute indicates that its intent is not to abridge or alter the existing remedies for airport noise. Compare Owen v. City of Atlanta, supra. The federal statute does not eliminate the state inverse condemnation remedy, but it does limit that remedy to those landowners who can demonstrate satisfaction of the specified criteria. Accordingly, I concur in the majority’s conclusion that the charge 49 USC § 47506 was legally applicable in this case.
Decided September 23, 1996 Reconsideration denied October 17, 1996. Clifford E. Hardwick IV, Charles G. Hicks, for appellant. Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Martin, Richard N. Hubert, David P. Thatcher, for appellees. Hall, Bloch, Garland & Meyer, F. Kennedy Hall, amicus curiae.Insofar as the factual applicability of the charge is concerned, there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that the Landowners had actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of the noise exposure map and that they did not satisfy the specified criteria for a recovery of damages for noise attributable to the City’s airport. Therefore, the trial court properly overruled the Landowners’ timely objection to that charge.
Because 49 USC § 47507 was legally and factually applicable in this case, the trial court correctly gave a charge on that statute and I concur in the reversal of the Court of Appeals’ remand of this case to the trial court.