Company

The individual plaintiff resided next to a property where the defendant had built a service station. The plaintiff alleged that headlights from the automobiles using the service station at night shined into his windows, which disturbed his sleep.

Melville Shoe Corp. maintainted a row of nitrogen lights in its building that were turned on at night, shining into the bedroom windows of the neighboring property, which disturbed the sleep of the the owners.

R.C. Maxwell Co., rents the roof of Crossan Co.'s building for the purpose of putting up signs. One of the signs is illuminated and its light shines on the bedroom windows of the neighboring building, the Shelburne hotel. The Shelburne hotel's complaint is that this light trespass from the illuminated sign detrimentally affects their business because it disturbs their guests.

The defendant, the Zoning Board of adjustment (ZBA) of the Town of Conway, denied a permit application for an internally lit sign to plaintiff Asselin because it was in violation of the town's ordinance which banned signs “illuminated from within." The trial court found the sign illumination provision valid and upheld the ZBA’s decision. In this consolidated case, another plaintiff, Cardiff & Company (Cardiff), also objected to the town's ordinance and was enjoined by the town from using his internally illuminated sign. The trial court issued a temporary injunction enforcing the ordinance’s regulation of Cardiff’s sign.

Plaintiff church (Prince of Peace) leased part of its land to defendant Solar Socceer Club (Solar) to build soccer fields on Prince of Peace's undeveloped property. In the contract, the parties agreed Solar would use the fields primarily on evenings and weekends, while Prince of Peace would use the fields during the school day for the students in its school. Prince of Peace filed suit against Solar for breach of contract with regard to four provisions, including whether use of the field lights "exceeded the City of Carrollton's standards for light trespass and glare, by as much as six to twelve times the maximum in some locations."

The Borough of Lebanon Planning Board/Board of Adjustment (the Board) denied plaintiff company's application for conditional use variances to the zoning code for off-premises billboard signs "illuminated by five 400-watt lamps mounted at the bottom, facing upwards, located three feet below the face of the sign and six feet away from it." The Board's denial was "because of the significant amount of light spillover along the edges of the sign face." The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff, finding the Board had conducted an improper denial of the variances.

Upon remand of Whiteco Outdoor Advertising v. City of Tucson, 193 Ariz. 314, the trial court found that plaintiff had failed to establish its substantive due process or equal protection rights were violated by the City of Tucson's Outdoor Lighting Code provision, which banned light fixtures mounted on the bottom of existing billboards.

Organization of school spending activists objected to the installation of high school stadium field lighting and other renovations on grounds of waste of funds, violation of zoning laws, and environmental concerns (including light trespass, glare, and sleep disruption). A consultant group stated that the sky glow and glare caused by the project would have a less than significant impact. Trial Court ruled in favor of the school district.

The US Department of Defense (DOD) approved the construction of a new military base in Okinawa. Japanese citizens and organizations brought action against the DOD for not considering the impact on the Okinawa dugong. Construction activities would require night lighting, which the Japanese environmental impact statement anticipated would not negatively affect the dugongs because the project would take preventive measures such as lighting cones.

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.