Company

Plaintiff filed a private nuisance suit against defendant company, alleging its drilling and gas exploration activities caused light pollution and noise which interfered with the use and enjoyment of her private property. The Court denied defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to plaintiffs intentional private nuisance claim because it found there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether its activities constituted a private nuisance.

Plaintiffs brought suit against Defendant companies, which held leasehold rights to develop oil and gas underlying the plaintiffs' properities, as they alleged the shale development by defendants caused them to lose the "use and enjoyment" of their properties. The Court affirmed the lower court's summary judgment in favor of defendant companies because it agreed with the finding that "effects on the surface owners resulting from the horizontal drilling were within the implied rights to use the surface granted by virtue of the severance deeds, and did not impose a substantial burden on the surface owners."

The Court found the testimonial evidence of the residents from the other municipality about the effects of the company's construction site in their municipality to be "relevant and probative" to the municipality in this case denying the same company a conditional use permit for a construction site. Part of the residents' concerns from the other municipality was about bright lights and light pollution coming from the company's construction site.

Company applied to lease land to build a natural gas well. Neighbors expressed concerns over the adverse effects of the project. Board of Supervisors granted the permit, but it was denied by the trial court. Trial court erred in finding the well was disimilar to a public service facility, as well as in finding that the well conflicted with the Zoning Ordinances. Neighbors did not show evidence that the well would harm the neighborhood's health and safety.

Organizations and individuals who list, visit, and recreate near the proposed mines challenged agency decisions allowing Oregon Resources Corp. (ORC) to operate chromite mines. Court found that the plaintiffs did not show the injunction would be in the public interest or that ORC did not adequately address environmental concerns.

The City's Board of Adjustment denied the plaintiff's development because it determined that it was located in a "Conservation Overlay District" and subject to certain "performance controls" intended to protect important environmental resources within the city. After plaintiff filed an appeal of the Board's decision in court, adjacent property owners filed for intervention claiming that the development would result in increase traffic, light pollution, noise, and loss of value to their properties. Plaintiff objected that the intervenors lacked standing and the Court affirmed the lower court's finding that the intervenors had standing.

The Court vacated the Administration Commission decision, finding that reliance in part on neighboring landowner's layperson testimony regarding potential increase of traffic, litter, noise, and light pollution coming from the Recreational Vehicle Park/Campground was not considered substantial evidence. The Court also found that the County's ordinance amending the zoning plan did not make the zoning plan "internally inconsistent." The Court remanded the case to the Administration Commission for reinstatement of the ordinance allowing the Recreational Vehicle Park/Campground as an amended part of the County's zoning plan.

The Court vacated the lower court decision dismissing the plaintiffs' claim that the City's Board of Standards and Appeals had no proper basis for a variance of its Zone Resolution regulating illuminated roof signs. The City's variance would have allowed a store to erect on the roofs of its premises an illuminated sign which would have been one hundred feet long and twelve feet high. The Court found that the "permitted use of glaringly bright electric lights would be so annoying to occupants of adjacent properties used exclusively for residential purposes as practically to constitute a nuisance to them; it would also affect adversely the value of property in this residental district."

The Court found that defendant Wells Fargo Bank had breached its contract with plaintiff Minnesota Vikings Football Stadium by installing mounted illuminated signs on the rooftops of its office towers because the contract between the parties "unambiguously prohibits" this. The Court granted plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction requiring defendant to remove the mounted illuminated signs and prohibiting them from installing other mounted illuminated signs.

The Court held that Long Hill Township’s ordinance prohibiting neon commerical signs was an impermissible restriction on commercial advertising because there was no evidence of a "nexus between the aesthetics purposes and a total ban of neon." The Court vacated the lower court's decision finding the ordinance constitutional and also vacated defendants' convictions for violating the Township's ordinance.