city

Blanchard v. Show Low Planning and Zoning Commission

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
Description

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.

Cite
196 Ariz. 114
Date
05-25-1999
Court
Arizona Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
Arizona
URL
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1161634/blanchard-v-show-low-planning-zon…
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 construct 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

Texas Department of Transportation v. City of Sunset Valley

Full Case Name
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Michael W. Behrens, Robert L. Nichols, John W. Johnson, and Ric Williamson, Appellants, v. CITY OF SUNSET VALLEY, Terrance R. Cowan, and Donald Hurwitz, Appellees
Cite
92 S.W.3d 540
Date
08-30-2002
Court
Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction
Texas
URL
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1752653/texas-department-of-transportatio…
Plaintiffs
state
Defendants
city
Incident Location
Sunset Valley, TX
Disputed Act

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.

Holding
Declaratory judgement that TxDOT and officials violated environmental regulations relating to noise and lighting from highway expansion was not warranted; Nuisance claims against TxDOT for use of high mast floodlights were not barred by sovereign immunity.
Disposition
reversed in part
affirmed in part
pole height
roadway lighting

Kee v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

Full Case Name
Robert J. KEE, Ruth E. Kee, Ruth Mixell, Keith S. Koegel, Cynthia A. Koegel, Morgan B. Price and Darcie E. Frye, Petitioners, and Township of West Pennsboro, Intervenor Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION, Respondent
Description

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.

Cite
685 A.2d 1054
Date
11-20-1996
Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania
URL
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5133929/kee-v-pennsylvania-turnpike-commi…
Plaintiffs
individual
city
Defendants
state
Incident Location
Plainfield, PA; West Penns-boro Township, PA
Disputed Act

Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission sought to expand the Plainfield Service Plaza. Neighboring residents objected and filed complaint due to failure to consider or study impacts of increased noise, air, and light pollution on the residential area caused by increased traffic and light towers. Commission filed preliminary objections.

Holding
Court overruled the Pennsylvanis Turnpike Commission's preliminary objections and held that the Commission was potentially required to conduct environmental impact study under Clean Streams Law. The Court remanded the case to the lower court.
Disposition
overruled
remanded
light trespass
residential neighborhood
commercial lighting

George Ward Builders, Inc. v. City of Lee's Summit

Full Case Name
GEORGE WARD BUILDERS, INC., and Robert Allen, Appellants, v. CITY OF LEE'S SUMMIT, Missouri, Respondent
Description

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.

Cite
157 S.W.3d 644
Date
11-23-2004
Court
Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
Missouri
URL
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1465344/george-ward-builders-inc-v-city-o…
Plaintiffs
Company
Defendants
city
Incident Location
Lee's Summit, MO
Disputed Act

Outdoor lighting system for sporting fields in a park owned by City of Lee's Summit created extreme level of light pollution that interfered with adjacent residential use and enjoyment of property.

Holding
The Court found trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's petition was final and appealable. The Court ruled that landowners were entitled to amend thier petition to plead claim of inverse condemnation.
Disposition
vacated
remanded
light trespass
over-illumination
artificial light at night
residential neighborhood
recreation & sports facilities

Texas Department of Transportation v. City of Sunset Valley

Full Case Name
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Michael W. Behrens, Robert L. Nichols, John W. Johnson, and Ric Williamson, Petitioners, v. CITY OF SUNSET VALLEY, Terrance R. Cowan, and Donald Hurwitz, Respondents
Description

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.

Cite
146 S.W.3d 637
Date
09-24-2004
Court
Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction
Texas
URL
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/894609/texas-department-of-transportation…
Plaintiffs
state
Defendants
city
Incident Location
Sunset Valley, TX
Disputed Act

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.

Holding
TxDOT's alleged failure to erect signage and decision to install high-mast floodlights did not give City officials standing to bring claim; nuisance created by floodlights did not amount to unconstitutional taking of mayor's property.
Disposition
reversed
rendered
enforcement
residential neighborhood
obtrusive light
roadway lighting
construction lighting

Whiteco Outdoor Advertising v. City of Tucson

Full Case Name
WHITECO OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, a division of Whiteco Industries, Inc., a Nebraska corporation, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. CITY OF TUCSON, an Arizona municipal corporation, Defendant/Appellant
Description

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.

Cite
193 Ariz. 314
Date
04-28-1998
Court
Arizona Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
Arizona
URL
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1224350/whiteco-outdoor-advertising-v-cit…
Plaintiffs
Company
Defendants
city
Incident Location
Tucson, AZ
Disputed Act

The City of Tucson passed an ordinance under the City's Outdoor Lighting Code which banned light fixtures mounted on the bottom of existing billboards. Plaintiff company filed a suit objecting to the requirement that it change its billboards to complay with this new requirement. Plaintiff was granted partial summary judgement because the Superior Court ruled the lighting fixtures were protected as nonconforming uses under ARS §9-462.02(A). The City appealed.

Holding
The Court held that the City of Tucson's charter provides general police power to regulate billboard lighting.
Disposition
vacated
remanded
billboard and sign illumination
Subscribe to city