(plaintiff charged defendant grain elevator with violation of local ordinances prohibiting excessive noise and nuisances; elevator challenged ordinances as void for vagueness in proscribing conduct; appellate court agreed that ordinances failed to provide defined and objective standard for prohibited conduct and held ordinances unconstitutional; on further review, Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the portion of the court of appeals’ ruling holding that the noise ordinance challenged by a grain elevator was unconstitutionally vague as applied; the ordinance's lack of an objective standards for making the determination as to whether the noise was “excessive” or “unnecessary” readily promoted varying and somewhat unpredictable bases for enforcement; this vagueness constituted an impermissible delegation of basic policy matters to actors for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis; the court reversed the portion of the court of appeals’ decision finding that the city nuisance ordinance was unconstitutionally vague; the court found that the ordinance conveyed to the grain elevator sufficient definite warning and fair notice as to the prohibited conduct in light of common understanding and practice; the ordinance was precise enough to adequately protect against arbitrary and discriminatory action by those tasked with enforcing it).