reversed

A school district leased its field to a baseball team which played night games, shining beacon lights into the windows of the neighboring resident, which disturbed his sleep.

Defendant company installed a light pole with a protective, adjustable shield in its parking area so that its light shines up into the plaintiff's bedroom windows of his residence at night. Plaintiff requested that defendant adjust the shield so that the light was not directed into plaintiff's windows, but defendant refused. Plaintiff then filed a nuisance suit, claiming that defendant's light pole with shielding caused "excessive light." The trial court dismissed the nuisance suit because it found that defendant's light was in compliance with the City's Code.

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. Plaintiff residents of the Township filed a "land use appeal" with the trial court, arguing that the Board's amended hours for digital sign illumination represented a "substantial amendment" to the ordinance which required additional notice requirements. The trial court had found the plaintiffs' "use and enjoyment" of their property had been impacted by the erection of a digital billboard near them as it illuminated their bedrooms at night which interfered with their ability to sleep. However, the trial court found held that the illumination hours change to the ordinance was not substantial and so the Township was not required to advertise a summary of the change.

Company applied to lease land from individuals for the purpose of building and operating a natural gas well. The township Board of Supervisors granted the conditional use permit after holding a hearing at which neighboring property owners expressed concerns over the adverse effects of the project, including traffic, noise, light pollution, potential well employees with criminal records, and property values. The permit was denied by the trial court.

Landowner applied to the town Board of Adjustment for a special use permit to develop a medical clinic. The Board denied the application based on concerns for the neighborhood, including light pollution from the parking lot.

Property owner sought to rezone property from residential to business to build service/gas station and was denied by County Board of Commissioners due to increased traffic, noise, and light pollution concerns. Property owner filed complaint alleging violation of substantive due process and confiscatory taking.

Property owner sought stalking injunction against neighbor. Neighbor complained to code enforcement about property owner's outdoor lighting and barking dogs.

City and city officials filed action against Texas Dept. of Transportation (TxDOT) concerning highway expansion. District Court awarded city damages and fees; declared TxDOT violated administrative regulations regarding noise and lighting, enjoined private nuisance, and enjoined equal protection violations from use of flood lights and failure to erect city limit signs.