Company

438 P.3d 1025

Full Case Name
KILGORE COMPANIES, Appellee, v. UTAH COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, Appellant.
Date
02-07-2019
Court
Court of Appeals of Utah
Jurisdiction
Utah
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Utah County, UT
Disputed Act

Kilgore Companies applied for conditional use of two 65-foot silos. The Utah County Board of Adjustment denied the application due to degradation of adjacent property values and lack of showing that the application would not degrade public health, safety, or welfare. Kilgore challenged the denial in district court, which set aside the Board's denial. Utah County appealed.

Holding
The court affirmed the district court's decision to grant Kilgore's petition and set aside the Board's denial.

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
Date
01-27-2010
Court
Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
Missouri
Plaintiffs
Defendants
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

157 S.W.3d 644

Full Case Name
GEORGE WARD BUILDERS, INC., and Robert Allen, Appellants, v. CITY OF LEE'S SUMMIT, Missouri, Respondent
Date
11-23-2004
Court
Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
Missouri
Plaintiffs
Defendants
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 interferes with adjacent residential use and enjoyment of property.

Holding
Trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's petition was final and appealable; landowners were entitled to re
Disposition

218 Md. App. 77

Full Case Name
BLUE INK, LTD. v. TWO FARMS, INC. d/b/a Royal Farms, Inc.
Date
07-30-2014
Court
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction
Maryland
Plaintiffs
Defendants
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

193 Ariz. 314

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
Date
04-28-1998
Court
Arizona Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
Arizona
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Tucson, AZ
Disputed Act

Whether the City of Tucson could ban light fixtures mounted on the bottom of existing billboards owned by Whiteco Outdoor Advertising under the City's Outdoor Lighting Code. Whiteco appealed to superior court and was granted partial summary judgement. Superior court ruled the lighting fixtures were protected as nonconforming uses under ARS §9-462.02(A). City appealed.

Holding
The City's charger provides general police power to regluate billboard lighting.
Disposition