Company

The plaintiff company failed to obtain a permit from the Town of Columbus prior to installing a new sign for its McDonald's Restaurant. The Township sent the company a Notice of Violation because it's sign violated the Town's sign ordinance by using "flashing and intermittent lights to display its messages."

The plaintiff company, Adams Outdoor Advertising, Ltd. (Adams), filed an application with the Zoning Hearing Board of the Township of Weisenberg (the Board) for a building permit to erect an off-premises advertising sign. The Board denied Adams' application because it was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of both its height and off-premises status. After Adams appealed to the Board, the Board granted Adams a variance for the sign and the Board issued Adams a permit, which limited the time period for illumination of the lights on the sign from between 6pm to 11pm. Upon objectors filing an appeal to the Board's permit, challenging the sign's height, the Board then revoked the permit for Adams' sign, and Adams appealed the Board's decision.

The City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment ("Board") granted a use permit to American Outdoor Advertising, Inc. ("American Outdoor") to operate an electronic billboard adjacent to Interstate 17. Plaintiff non-profits brought suit to enjoin the electronic billboard, alleging the billboard would violate Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 28-7903 (1998),[3] a provision of the Arizona Highway Beautification Act ("AHBA"), in part due to its intermittent lighting.

Defendants sought to replace an existing billboard on their property in a residential neighborhood. Plaintiffs, who live nearby defendant, brought suit requesting injunctive relief to enjoin defendant from keeping the new billboard in place. The plaintiffs alleged that the new billboard did not meet the requirements of G. L. c. 93 and 711 Code Mass. Regs. § 3.00 et seq. (2010) and that the new billboard was different from the old billboard because, among other things, it was lit with light-emitting diode (LED) lamps hidden and mounted at the bottom of the billboard’s catwalk, as opposed to the prior sign’s floodlights. The trial court judge credited the defendants’ evidence that the new billboard's LED lighting minimized “backwash lighting,” or “light trespass.”

Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the United States Forest Service from re-opening the "Canyon Mine" in Northern Arizona, alleging that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act and that the "valid existing rights determination" by the Forest Service failed to consider all relevant cost factors. Plaintiff's concerns about the re-opening of the mine involve environmental and historical impacts of the mine on Indigenous land surrounding the mine, as well as dust, truck traffic, light pollution and noise.

After plaintiff company purchased a parcel of land in the City of Simi Valley, plaintiff was denied a permit by the City to develop the property into a hotel. The City had concerns about the effects of noise, lights, and possible night-time disturbance to the residential area near the parcel if the parcel was developed commercially. The City then amended its General Plan so that the parcel could only be used for residential development. Plaintiff company challenged this redesignation as unconstitutional and in violation of state law.

Religious and educational institution purchased property with the intent to build a structure at which to conduct its regular activities. Neighbors objected based on noise and light pollution concerns. Institution alleged religious discrimination after County denied the conditional use permit for the property. Institution and County both moved for summary judgment.

Township Board's and trial court's decisions allowed for the construction of a gas compressor station adjacent to landowners' farm. Landowners appealed on the basis that evidence that the station will negatively affect public health and welfare was not considered and that they were denied the opportunity to present additional evidence. The township's conditions for the gas compressor station already required the station to minimize nighttime lighting.

City Commission approved developer's subdivision preliminary plat. Neighbors filed complaints alleging the developer's environmental assessment inadequately addressed potential increased traffic, decreased water quality, flooding, and light pollution. District Court found the approval of the plat unlawful for failure to address groundwater and surface pollution concerns. Developer appealed.

City approved plans for a 37-lot subdivision. Nearby residents and a neighborhood association opposed the subdivision due to incompatibility with the City's growth policy, ecological concerns, traffic, and light pollution; they then petitioned for judicial review. District Court found City's decisions to be arbitrary and capricious. City and developer appealed.