Company

438 P.3d 1025

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.

645 F.3d 978

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
Date
07-14-2011
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction
United States
Plaintiffs
Defendants
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

302 S.W.3d 754

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

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

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

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