affirmed

196 Ariz. 114

Full Case Name
William BLANCHARD; Leveta Challis; Veta Cook; Caron Letcher; Carole and Vaughn Thompson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross Appellees, v. SHOW LOW PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION; City Of Show Low; Ed Muder, as Planning and Zoning Administrator, Defendants-Appellees, Cross Appellants, John Menhennet, Trustee of the John Menhennet Living Trust; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Real Parties in Interest, Defendants-Appellees
Cite
196 Ariz. 114
Date
05-25-1999
Court
Arizona Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
Arizona
URL
https://cite.case.law/ariz/196/114/
Plaintiffs
individual
Defendants
city
Incident Location
Show Low, AZ
Disputed Act

Neighboring property owners brought special action against City regarding rezoning of newly annexed parcel to construt a large chain discount store due to increased traffic, noise, air, and light pollution.

Holding
Court of Appeals held that citizens did not have taxpayer standing to challenge rezoning and only neighboring owners located approximately 750 feet from parcel showed particularized harm necessary for standing.
Disposition
affirmed
residential neighborhood
commercial lighting

851 N.E.2d 962

Full Case Name
Todd GREEN, et al., Appellants-Petitioners, v. HANCOCK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS and Joyce Holmes, Appellees-Respondents
Cite
851 N.E.2d 962
Date
07-18-2006
Court
Court of Appeals of Indiana
Jurisdiction
Indiana
URL
https://cite.case.law/ne2d/851/962/
Plaintiffs
individual
Defendants
county
Incident Location
Center Township, IN
Disputed Act

Property owner sought to build a banquet hall in agricultural zoning district. Neighbors objected to property owner's petition based on adverse effects to property values, increased traffic volume, community endangerment, and increased noise and light pollution. The Hancock County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) granted the property owner a special exception for construction. Neighbors sought judicial review; Circuit Court affirmed; neighbors appealed.

Holding
BZA did not act outside of its statutory authorization. The proposed facility was an acceptable commercial recreational use for zoning ordinance special exception.
Disposition
affirmed
general illumination

645 F.3d 978

Full Case Name
SIERRA CLUB; National Audubon Society; Audubon Arkansas; Charles Mills, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Granville Parnell, Plaintiff, Yancey Reynolds, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; Colonel Jeffrey R. Eckstein, In his Official Capacity as Current District Engineer, Vicksburg District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Defendants, Southwestern Electric Power Company, Intervenor defendant-Appellant; Hempstead County Hunting Club, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Southwestern Electric Power Company, Defendant-Appellant, United States Army Corps of Engineers; Colonel Jeffrey R. Eckstein, District Engineer, Vicksburg District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; United States Department of the Interior; Ken Salazar, Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior; United States Fish and Wildlife Service; Rowan Gould, Acting Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Defendants
Cite
645 F.3d 978
Date
07-14-2011
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction
United States
URL
https://cite.case.law/f3d/645/978/
Plaintiffs
Organization
Defendants
Federal Government
Incident Location
Hempstead County, AR
Disputed Act

Environmental organizations brought action against Amry Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, and electric utility for violating the 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. Preliminary injunctions were granted in part and permit work was ordered to halt. Utility appealed.

Holding
Court of Appeals held that suffered injury in fact required for standing was met; plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm abset injunction; balance of hardship favored injunction; and public interest supported injunction.
Disposition
affirmed
general illumination
commercial lighting

302 S.W.3d 754

Full Case Name
STATE of Missouri, ex rel. KARSCH, et al., Appellants, v. CAMDEN COUNTY, Missouri, Board of Adjustment, Respondent
Cite
302 S.W.3d 754
Date
01-27-2010
Court
Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
Missouri
URL
https://cite.case.law/sw3d/302/754/
Plaintiffs
Company
Indidual
Defendants
county
Incident Location
Camden County, MO
Disputed Act

Developer sought conditional use permit to build condominiums on his property. County Board of Adjustment denied the application following laywitness testimony about concerns for increased traffic, noise, litter, and light pollution. Developer sought writ of certiorari to challenge denial. Circuit Court affirmed, developer appealed.

Holding
The Board did not err in denying application for conditional use permit.
Disposition
affirmed
residential neighborhood
general illumination

218 Md. App. 77

Full Case Name
BLUE INK, LTD. v. TWO FARMS, INC. d/b/a Royal Farms, Inc.
Cite
218 Md. App. 77
Date
07-30-2014
Court
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction
Maryland
URL
https://cite.case.law/md-app/218/77/
Plaintiffs
Company
Defendants
Company
Incident Location
Middle River, MD
Disputed Act

Trial court ruled in favor of Blue Ink for damages to build a fence between their property and Two Farms gas station due to illumination interference by the gas station on Blue Ink's plans to expand their drive-in theater experience.

Holding
The court affirmed the circuit court's judgement to set aside the trial court's judgement in favor of Blue Ink (dba Bengies) due to legally insufficient evidence to support private nuisance claim.
Disposition
affirmed
light trespass or spillover
commercial lighting
canopy lighting
internally illuminated sign colors
LED lamp
service station
glare
artificial light
Subscribe to affirmed