individual

Plaintiff residents of Philadelphia objected to the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) granting a variance to permit the Applicant, the Franklin Institute, to change its sign from vinyl to digital. The Franklin Institute had informed the ZBA it would agree to, among other things, reduce the sign’s brightness and equip the sign with automatic dimming control, which adjusts the sign’s light levels to changing conditions.

Plaintiffs, whose property is located within a zone over which aircraft from Arcata-Eureka Airport routinely fly, challenge the constitutionality of a Humboldt County general plan requirement that they provide an aircraft overflight easement as a condition for obtaining a building permit to make minor alterations to their residence, arguing that the easement requirement constitutes a taking of their property without payment of just compensation. The overflight easement grants the County the right to, among other things, "regulate or prohibit light emissions that might interfere with pilot vision."

Plaintiffs, owners of land near Hill Air Force Base, Utah, brought suit against the United States for compensation due to an avigation easement restricting the light, height of structures, smoke and electrical emissions coming from their land for the purpose of ensuring a safe flight path for aviators taking off and landing at the Air Force Base.

The City amended its Motor Vehicle Dealers Ordinance, which required used-car dealers to obtain a license for each location at which they sell cars and set boundaries about how close used-car dealerships can be to residential areas. The Ordinance stated in its preamble that its purpose was to curb any detrimental effects on the surrounding residential communities, including nighttime glare and light pollution. The City denied the plaintiffs a license under the amended Ordinance, the plaintiffs appealed, and the City denied that appeal. The plaintiffs sued the City, alleging that the denial of their license-application appeal violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Texas Constitutions.

Plaintiffs either live or work within 2 blocks of land purchased by the Seneca Nation of Indians (the Nation) from the City of Buffalo for the development of a gaming casino. The plaintiffs filed suit against the City of Buffalo for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the City from taking any actions toward approval or action upon the agreement about the land sale to the Nation for the building of a casino, alleging that an appropriate environmental review was not undertaken, and cited concerns about increased traffic, air pollution, light pollution, and noise from the construction of the casino.

A group of individual plaintiffs challenged the validity of the gaming compact entered into by the State of Oregon and the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians (the Tribes), which allowed development of the Hatch Tract by the Tribes for gaming purposes. The plaintiffs alleged that they would be harmed by the Tribes' casino on the Hatch Tract through higher taxes, reduced property values, increased traffic congestion, increased air, noise and light pollution, and the detrimental effect on local businesses.

A group of Ridgeland residents challenged the legality of an ordinance issued by the City of Ridgeland to allow developers to construct a thirteen-story office building near them. The residents' concerns about the construction of the commerical development included ingress and egress access issues, depreciation of home values, the height of the building, and after-dark light pollution. The City of Ridgeland argued that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the ordinance.

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.