individual

The court found that the defendant school district caused a nuisance by allowing its field to be leased to a baseball team that shined its lights on the plaintiff's residence at night, interfering with the plaintiff's sleep. The court directed that an injunction be granted.

The court found that the service station created a nuisance for its neighboring resident because it allowed light from its customers' headlights using its station at night to shine into the windows of the neighboring residence.

The court found that lights turned on after midnight by a defendant corporation was considered a nuisance to a plaintiffs' neighboring residential property in that it deprived the plaintiffs of the reasonable use of their property and disturbed their sleep.

The Court affirmed the trial court's findings that the Town's ordinance, which banned internally illuminated signs, is consistent with the requirements of the State Constitution and is a reasonable exercise of the Town's police power. The Court also affirmed the trial court decisions in favor of the Town's denial of the permit for an internally illuminated sign to plaintiff Asselin and granting an injunction requested by the Town enforcing the sign illumination ordinance against plaintiff Cardiff & Company's internally illuminated signs.

The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trumball (Commission) denied the special permit of a private school for the installation of four light poles, seventy feet in height, to illuminate its primary athletic field, after considering concerns from resident neighbors of the private school that allowing the lights would adversely affect the "use and enjoyment" of their properties. The Court vacated the lower court's decision which had allowed the private school's case against the Commission because "a zoning commission has discretion to determine whether a proposal satisfies the requirements for a special permit."

The Department of Defense (DOD) approved the construction of a military base in Okinawa. Japanese groups brought action against DOD for not considering the impact on the Okinawa dugong, including night lighting. The Court held that DOD did not violate the National Historic Preservation Act by not consulting directly with Plaintiffs, or by relying on academic experts instead of cultural practitioners. The Court also found that DOD's determination that the construction would not negatively affect the dugong was not arbitrary or capricious. The Court dismissed the case.

Residential neighbors challenged ordinance which allowed oil and gas operations and permit issued for a gas well nearby pursuant to the ordinance. The Court held that landowners failed to establish that natural gas drilling was incompatible within the zoning district or that the ordinance violated Environmental Rights Amendment to Pennsylvania Constitution; Zoning board was not required to perform pre-enactment environmental studies.

The Court found that the lights installed by Ohio's Department of Transportation on U.S. Route 30 resulted in an uncompensated taking of plaintiff's property that is actionable and compensable under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court ordered defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff for the crop loss.

The Court found that the lights installed by Ohio's Department of Transportation on U.S. Route 23 resulted in an uncompensated taking of plaintiff's property that is actionable and compensable under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because the light encroached upon plaintiff's property and directly resulted in his bean crop's inability to mature. The Court awarded damages to the plaintiff for the crop loss.

Defendant company installed a light pole with a protective, adjustable shield in its parking area so that its light shines into the plaintiff's bedroom windows of his residence at night, so plaintiff filed a nuisance suit. The trial court dismissed the nuisance suit because it found that defendant's light was in compliance with the City's Code. The Court reversed the dismissal of plaintiff's nuisance claim because it found that plaintiff had demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact about the reasonableness of defendant's driveway light.