U.S. Case Law Search

The court found that an illuminated sign created light trespass on a neighboring hotel, which was considered a nuisance that materially affected their guests at night. The court restrained the business from operating the sign after midnight.

The court found that the service station created a nuisance for its neighboring resident because it allowed light from its customers' headlights using its station at night to shine into the windows of the neighboring residence.

The court found that lights turned on after midnight by a defendant corporation was considered a nuisance to a plaintiffs' neighboring residential property in that it deprived the plaintiffs of the reasonable use of their property and disturbed their sleep.

The Court vacated the lower court decision dismissing the plaintiffs' claim that the City's Board of Standards and Appeals had no proper basis for a variance of its Zone Resolution regulating illuminated roof signs. The City's variance would have allowed a store to erect on the roofs of its premises an illuminated sign which would have been one hundred feet long and twelve feet high. The Court found that the "permitted use of glaringly bright electric lights would be so annoying to occupants of adjacent properties used exclusively for residential purposes as practically to constitute a nuisance to them; it would also affect adversely the value of property in this residental district."

The court found that the defendant school district caused a nuisance by allowing its field to be leased to a baseball team that shined its lights on the plaintiff's residence at night, interfering with the plaintiff's sleep. The court directed that an injunction be granted.

The Court found that plaintiffs may be entitled to compensation because they were unable to develop their land residentially due to an avigation easement restricting the light, height of structures, smoke, and electrical emissions coming from their land for the purpose of ensuring a safe flight path for aviators taking off and landing at the Hill Air Force Base in Utah. The Court remanded the case to the trial division to determine which tracts of land had been subjected to the easement by the United States and to calculate the correct amount of compensation.

The Court found that substantial evidence supported the decision of the California Coastal Commission to disapprove the City's plan, which would have allowed excessive light pollution from economic development to endanger native species in the coastal zone.

The Court found that the City of Simi Valley's decision to amend the General Plan designation of the parcel that plaintiff had purchased from "General Commerical with a Hotel/Motel Node" to residential was not arbitrary or unreasonable, and so was constitutional under both state and federal law. The Court dismissed the case.

The Court reversed the the trial court's order denying plaintiff's appeal from the Zoning Hearing Board's decision to revoke plaintiff's building permit for its billboard, finding that the objectors' appeal from the issuance of the building permit for the plaintiff's sign was untimely filed. The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that plaintiff waived its right to pursue a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Zoning Ordinance when plaintiff entered into a compromise agreement with the Zoning Hearing Board regarding the billboard's lighting restrictions, position, height, size and number of advertising faces.

The Court affirmed the trial court's findings that the Town's ordinance, which banned internally illuminated signs, is consistent with the requirements of the State Constitution and is a reasonable exercise of the Town's police power. The Court also affirmed the trial court decisions in favor of the Town's denial of the permit for an internally illuminated sign to plaintiff Asselin and granting an injunction requested by the Town enforcing the sign illumination ordinance against plaintiff Cardiff & Company's internally illuminated signs.

Neighboring residents objected and filed complaint against Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (Commission) for plans to expand the Plainfield Service Plaza without conducting an environmental impact study. Court held that the Commission was potentially required to conduct an environmental impact study under the Clean Streams Law. The Court overruled the Commission's preliminary objections to the complaint and remanded the case to the trial court.

The Court held that Long Hill Township’s ordinance prohibiting neon commerical signs was an impermissible restriction on commercial advertising because there was no evidence of a "nexus between the aesthetics purposes and a total ban of neon." The Court vacated the lower court's decision finding the ordinance constitutional and also vacated defendants' convictions for violating the Township's ordinance.

City of Tucson outdoor lighting code prohibited bottom-mounted lighting on billboards. Whiteco Outdoor Advertising sought to enjoin city from enforcing lighting code against their existing billboards. The Court held that the City's charter provides general police power to regulate billboard lighting.

Nearby property owners brought special action aginst City regarding rezoning to construct a large chain discount store due to adverse effects. Court held that the property owners did not have taxpayer standing to challenge rezoning as their property was not located close enough to the parcel to show particularized harm.

The Court affirmed the trial court ruling which dismissed the case in favor of the City of Tucson's Outdoor Lighting Code regulating light fixtures mounted on the bottom of existing billboards. The Court found that no constitutional rights of the plaintiff company were violated and the proper standard of review was rational basis since plaintiff was not a member of suspect class.

The Court affirmed the Circuit Court's order reversing the Dane County Board of Adjustment's decision to deny the University of Wisconsin-Madison the ability to build a build a radio station tower. The Court found that the University of Wisconsin-Madison's radio station tower is a "governmental use" so it meets the requirements of conditional use permit in the A-1 Agriculture District Exclusive under the Dane County Zoning Ordinance.

Property owner sought to rezone land from residential to business. Application was denied by County Board of Commissioners due to potential adverse effects. The court held that the property owner was entitled to de novo review by trial court.

City and city officials filed action against the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) concerning highway expansion. The Court ruled that TxDOT's alleged failure to erect signage and decision to install high-mast floodlights did not give City officials standing to bring claim.

Landowners brought action against the City for nuisance caused by lighting system at a nearby city park. Trial court dismissed landowners' petition. Court of Appeals held that landowners were entitled to amend their petition to plead claim of inverse condemnation on remand.

The Court affirmed the trial court's conclusion that the plaintiff's illuminated sign does not violate the Town's ordinance because "the mere fact that the LEDs necessarily flash or move at the moment the sign is changing its advertising copy cannot be considered a violation of the other provisions of the ordinance" which prohibit flashing lights on signs. The Court reversed the trial court's order "to the extent it directs the Town to issue a permit for the sign without any limitations" and remanded the matter to the trial court.

A group of individual plaintiffs challenged the validity of the gaming compact entered into by the State of Oregon and the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians (the Tribes), which allowed development of the Hatch Tract by the Tribes for gaming purposes. The Court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing and dismissed the case.

County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) granted a special exception to a property owner for construction of a banquet hall within an agricultural zoning district despite neighbor objections based on adverse effects to community. The court ruled that the BZA did not act outside of its statutory authorization and the proposed facility was acceptable for a special exception.

The plaintiffs filed suit against the City of Buffalo for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the City of Buffalo from taking any actions toward approval or action upon the agreement about the land sale to the Seneca Nation of Indians for the building of a casino, alleging that an appropriate environmental review was not undertaken, and citing concerns about increased traffic, air pollution, light pollution, and noise from the construction of the casino. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

The Court found that the lights installed by Ohio's Department of Transportation on U.S. Route 23 resulted in an uncompensated taking of plaintiff's property that is actionable and compensable under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because the light encroached upon plaintiff's property and directly resulted in his bean crop's inability to mature. The Court awarded damages to the plaintiff for the crop loss.

The Court found that the lights installed by Ohio's Department of Transportation on U.S. Route 30 resulted in an uncompensated taking of plaintiff's property that is actionable and compensable under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court ordered defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff for the crop loss.

The Court affirmed the trial court ruling that there was evidence from which the jury could have concluded defendant breached the use clause of the leasing contract it had with plaintiff to build soceer fields on plaintiff's property by its over-illumination of the field lights, which caused light trespass and glare.

Property owner sought to rezone land to be included as part of nearby industrial park despite property being designated as a buffer zone between the park and rural agriculatural land. Property owner's applicationw as denied by the Urban County Planning Board Commission. The court ruled that the Commission's denial of the application was suported by substantial evidence.

The Court found that construction and use of the proposed casino would have "potential long-term adverse impacts" to "land use" resulting from "lighting, noise, traffic, litter, the presence of multi-story buildings, the absence of buffers, and other operational characterstics of a casino." The Court also found that "lights, noise and activity" would disturb the nearby wildlife, "further degrading the woodlands' value as a habitat." The Court concluded that the State of NY and other plaintiffs had demonstrated that they were entitled to a permanent injunction that prevented the development of a casino by the Shinnecock Tribe.

The County granted Loyola College a special exception to build a retreat center on a property in the Resource Conservation zone in Maryland. Residents filed a suit against Loyola College, objecting to its proposed use of property in that zone. Loyola College proferred testimony that their use of the property would have minimal impact on the zone, including light pollution. The Court found the county could grant Loyola College a special exception to use the property for a retreat center and did not need to compare its potential adverse effects to other similiarly zoned locations in the jurisdiction.

The City's Motor Vehicle Dealers Ordinance set boundaries about how close used-car dealerships can be to residential areas in order to curb any detrimental effects on the surrounding residential communities, including nighttime glare and light pollution. The plaintiffs, owners of a used-car dealership, sued the City for denying their dealership's license, alleging an equal protection claim against the City for treating their dealership differently than others. The Court found there was not sufficient evidence for an equal protection claim and dismissed the case.

City sought land to expand a water treatment plant. Property owner objected due to impact on access to her property and because the buffer portion of the land would be taken in fee. Court held that the City did not need to complete a final plat by a specific date, that the decision to take buffer land in fee was not arbitrary, and that emininent domain does not prevent the City from taking a fee interest in the buffer land.

Plaintiff developer applied for a conditional use permit to build condominiums on his property. The County Board of Adjustment denied the application following laywitness testimony about concerns with regard to increased traffic, noise, litter, and light pollution. The Court found that the laywitness concerns were contained in the list of reasons set out in section 408.4 of the Code which support the denial of a request for a conditional use permit. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment that the County Board of Adjustment did not err in denying plaintiff developer the application for a conditional use permit.

The City's Board of Adjustment denied the plaintiff's development because it determined that it was located in a "Conservation Overlay District" and subject to certain "performance controls" intended to protect important environmental resources within the city. After plaintiff filed an appeal of the Board's decision in court, adjacent property owners filed for intervention claiming that the development would result in increase traffic, light pollution, noise, and loss of value to their properties. Plaintiff objected that the intervenors lacked standing and the Court affirmed the lower court's finding that the intervenors had standing.

Commission approved developer's subdivision preliminary plat. Neighbors filed complaints alleging the developer's environmental assessment was inadequate. District Court found the approval of the plat unlawful for failure to address pollution concerns. Developer appealed. The Court found that the Plaintiff's had standing and that the trial court appropriately voided the preliminary plat due to the lack of information about groundwater and surface pollution.

The Court found that although plaintiff residents had the standing to challenge an ordinance granted by the City of Ridgeland about the construction of a thirteen-story office building near them, the City's decision to allow construction of the building was not arbitrary or capricious and was supported by substantial evidence.

The Borough of Lebanon Planning Board/Board of Adjustment (the Board) denied plaintiff company's application for conditional use variances to the zoning code for off-premises billboard signs "illuminated by five 400-watt lamps mounted at the bottom, facing upwards, located three feet below the face of the sign and six feet away from it." The Court reversed the trial court's decision in favor of plaintiff because it found the trial court did not provide sufficient deference to the Board's finding that light spillover was a justifiable concern and that the plaintiff's illumination compliance with the zoning code was imperfect.

The Court vacated the Administration Commission decision, finding that reliance in part on neighboring landowner's layperson testimony regarding potential increase of traffic, litter, noise, and light pollution coming from the Recreational Vehicle Park/Campground was not considered substantial evidence. The Court also found that the County's ordinance amending the zoning plan did not make the zoning plan "internally inconsistent." The Court remanded the case to the Administration Commission for reinstatement of the ordinance allowing the Recreational Vehicle Park/Campground as an amended part of the County's zoning plan.

Organizations and individuals who list, visit, and recreate near the proposed mines challenged agency decisions allowing Oregon Resources Corp. (ORC) to operate chromite mines. Court found that the plaintiffs did not show the injunction would be in the public interest or that ORC did not adequately address environmental concerns.

City approved plans for a subdivision. Neighbors and an association opposed the subdivision and petitioned for judicial review. District Court found City's decisions to be arbitrary and capricious. City and developer appealed. Court held that Plaintiffs had standing and that the City was required to substantially comply with its growth policy, but did not do so when it approved the subdivision plan. Court also found that the agreement between City and the developer did not supersede the growth policy.

Environmental activists brought action against the Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, and electric utility company for violating Clean Water Act (CWA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the process of obtaining a permit to construct a new coal-fired power plant. Court ruled that irreparable harm, balance of hardship, and public interest supported injunction.

The Court affirmed the lower court's decision that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the case. The Court reversed the lower court's holding that the City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment (the Board) "did not act in excess of its authority." The Court reversed on the merits because it found that the billboard approved by the Board violated the Arizona Highway Beautification Act due its intermittent lighting.

Landowner applied to the Board of Adjustment for a permit to develop a medical clinic, which was denied based on concerns for the neighborhood. Court found that the landowner should have had a second chance to present evidence, and that the Board must make reviewable findings of fact based solely on the testimony and evidence presented at hearings.

The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the area around the defendants' new billboard was not primarily of a business character as viewed from the highway and that the requirements of 711 Code Mass. Regs. § 3.07 were not satisfied. The Court also affirmed the trial court's decision to order that the defendants' billboard not be illuminated at night and that it be removed within ninety days.

The Court found that, in approving the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority’s proposal, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service complied with the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Rocky Flats Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act.

The Court found no substantial evidence that the School District's proposed field lighting would have a significant effect on the environment due to the limited hours of operation, limited evening events, and low number of residences impacted in excess of 0.8 foot-candles. The Court also found that the lighting would not substantially impact the historic aesthetic of the neighborhood.

Institution purchased property to build a structure for religious and educational activities. Neighbors objected based on noise and light pollution concerns. Institution alleged religious discrimination after County denied the permit. Institution and County both moved for summary judgment. Court found no evidence to support a denial based on impact on adjacent properties. Court also found no evidence that permit was denied on religious grounds; however, the denial substantially burdened the plaintiff's religious exercise. Court found that the denial was arbitrary.

The Court found that the proposed overflight easement of plaintiffs' property, granting Humboldt County the right to, among other things, "regulate or prohibit light emissions that might interfere with pilot vision" as a condition for plaintiffs obtaining a building permit to make "minor alterations to their residence," did not as a matter of law effect a taking under Fifth Amendment jurisprudence or California law, and the plaintiffs failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to establish the practical effect of the easement was to bring about such a taking. The Court dismissed the case.

Plaintiff company brought a suit for private nuisance against defendant gas station due to illumination intereference by the gas station on plaintiff's plans to expand its drive-in theater experience. The Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment to set aside the trial court's judgment and damages awarded in favor of plaintiff due to legally insufficient evidence to support a private nuisance claim against defendant.

The Court found that plaintiffs failed to establish a violation under the National Environmental Policy Act by the United States Forest Service for re-opening the "Canyon mine, and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert that the "valid existing rights determination" by the Forest Service failed to consider all relevant cost factors. The Court dismissed the case.

Plaintiff residents of Philadelphia objected to the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) granting a variance to permit the Applicant, the Franklin Institute, to change its sign from vinyl to digital. The Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the City's Zoning Board of Adjustment's granting of a variance for an Applicant to change its sign from vinyl to digital.

Defendant company installed a light pole with a protective, adjustable shield in its parking area so that its light shines into the plaintiff's bedroom windows of his residence at night, so plaintiff filed a nuisance suit. The trial court dismissed the nuisance suit because it found that defendant's light was in compliance with the City's Code. The Court reversed the dismissal of plaintiff's nuisance claim because it found that plaintiff had demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact about the reasonableness of defendant's driveway light.

Company applied to lease land to build a natural gas well. Neighbors expressed concerns over the adverse effects of the project. Board of Supervisors granted the permit, but it was denied by the trial court. Trial court erred in finding the well was disimilar to a public service facility, as well as in finding that the well conflicted with the Zoning Ordinances. Neighbors did not show evidence that the well would harm the neighborhood's health and safety.

Palmer Township Board of Supervisor (Board) enacted a zoning ordinance to allow digital advertising signs and billboard. The Board then later amended the number of hours the digital billboards could be illuminated, from 17 to 24 horus a day without providing notice. The Court reversed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's case, finding that because the change to the zoning ordinance resulted in a deprivation of plaintiffs' right to the use and enjoyment of their property, the change was a “substantial amendment” and the Township was required to advertise the change prior to enactment of the ordinance,

Township allowed for the construction of a gas compressor station adjacent to landowners' farm. Landowners appealed on the basis that evidence that the station will negatively affect public health and welfare was not considered and that they were denied the opportunity to present additional evidence. Court found that evidence lacked probative value. Court also found the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not permitting expansion of the record.

The Board of County Commissioners granted a special use permit to a company to build a greenhouse in a preservation area. There were initial concerns by residents about light pollution and other effects from the construction. However, the company re-submitted a plan that addressed these concerns. The Board made findings that the re-submitted plan was consistent with the Master Plan for the preservation area, and the Court concluded the Board was allowed to make this finding.

The Court affirmed the conclusion of the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing Board (GMHB) that Airway Height's ordinances allowing residential development near the city's airforce base violated Washington State's Growth Management Act (GMA). The court adopted the GMHB’s definition of “incompatible development” as a “development that is incompatible with a military installation's ability to carry out its current or future missions.”

The Court found that defendant Wells Fargo Bank had breached its contract with plaintiff Minnesota Vikings Football Stadium by installing mounted illuminated signs on the rooftops of its office towers because the contract between the parties "unambiguously prohibits" this. The Court granted plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction requiring defendant to remove the mounted illuminated signs and prohibiting them from installing other mounted illuminated signs.

Plaintiff filed a private nuisance suit against defendant company, alleging its drilling and gas exploration activities caused light pollution and noise which interfered with the use and enjoyment of her private property. The Court denied defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to plaintiffs intentional private nuisance claim because it found there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether its activities constituted a private nuisance.

Proposed natural gas pipeline project would impact wetlands. State found the project to be water dependent and the least environmentally damaging option. An environmental organization filed a petition for review. Court found that it has jurisdiction, State's interpretation of water dependency should be upheld, and that State's rejection of a compression alternative was reasonable and nonarbitrary.

The Court found that the Montana Department of Environmental Quality violated the Montana Environmental Policy Act because it only considered the environmental impacts to water quality of the construction and operation of the wastewater discharging permit issued to the facility.

The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trumball (Commission) denied the special permit of a private school for the installation of four light poles, seventy feet in height, to illuminate its primary athletic field, after considering concerns from resident neighbors of the private school that allowing the lights would adversely affect the "use and enjoyment" of their properties. The Court vacated the lower court's decision which had allowed the private school's case against the Commission because "a zoning commission has discretion to determine whether a proposal satisfies the requirements for a special permit."

Individuals applied for a permit for a bed and breakfast. City Planning Commission approved the permit in spite of neighbors' concerns. The permit was later denied by City Council; the denial was reversed by the district court. Court found City Council did not issue sufficient findings supporting its denial of the permit, and that the district court should have permitted Council to craft new findings of fact and conclusions of law capable of appellate review.

Landowners brought suit against county for rezoning adjacent land without proper notice. The court ruled that the landowners failed to allege sufficient injury to challenge the county's ordinance.

The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the United States Bureau of Land Management from instituting the Suspension Rule regarding the Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resourse Conservation Rule.

Environmental activists brought action against the federal government challenging Bureau of Land Management's approval of applications for drill permits in the San Juan Basin as in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Court held BLM's approval of applications did not violate NEPA nor NHPA, and dismissed the case.

Neighbor complained to code enforcement about property owner's outdoor lighting. Property owner sought stalking injunction in response. Court ruled evidence did not support willful and malicious conduct to support stalking injunction.

The Department of Defense (DOD) approved the construction of a military base in Okinawa. Japanese groups brought action against DOD for not considering the impact on the Okinawa dugong, including night lighting. The Court held that DOD did not violate the National Historic Preservation Act by not consulting directly with Plaintiffs, or by relying on academic experts instead of cultural practitioners. The Court also found that DOD's determination that the construction would not negatively affect the dugong was not arbitrary or capricious. The Court dismissed the case.

Residential neighbors challenged ordinance which allowed oil and gas operations and permit issued for a gas well nearby pursuant to the ordinance. The Court held that landowners failed to establish that natural gas drilling was incompatible within the zoning district or that the ordinance violated Environmental Rights Amendment to Pennsylvania Constitution; Zoning board was not required to perform pre-enactment environmental studies.

The Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the city of Pomona's agreeement with Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. was a new agreement that violated a duty to comply with Proposition L, a ballot initiative that passed which prohibited the construction of additional billboards within Pomona city limits.

The Utah County Board of Adjustment (the Board) denied the plantiff company's application for a permit to use 65-foot silos due to public concerns about that the increased height of the silos. The Court found there was insufficient evidence to support the Board's decision in denying the permit and found that the plaintiff had met its burden of proof that the additional height of the silos would not have a negative effect on the public health, safety, and welfare or surrounding property
values. The Court affirmed the district court's decision to set aside the Board's denial.

Environmental activists brought action against federal government challenging Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approval of applications for permit to drill fracked wells on public lands, alleging that BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Nationa Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). District Court judged in favor of BLM; activists appealed. Activists had standing to bring action; environmental assessments adequately analyzed cumulative effects of granting drill applications as required by NEPA; activists failed to show BLM acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

The Court found the testimonial evidence of the residents from the other municipality about the effects of the company's construction site in their municipality to be "relevant and probative" to the municipality in this case denying the same company a conditional use permit for a construction site. Part of the residents' concerns from the other municipality was about bright lights and light pollution coming from the company's construction site.

Plaintiffs brought suit against Defendant companies, which held leasehold rights to develop oil and gas underlying the plaintiffs' properities, as they alleged the shale development by defendants caused them to lose the "use and enjoyment" of their properties. The Court affirmed the lower court's summary judgment in favor of defendant companies because it agreed with the finding that "effects on the surface owners resulting from the horizontal drilling were within the implied rights to use the surface granted by virtue of the severance deeds, and did not impose a substantial burden on the surface owners."