Other Governmental Entity

Hansen v. Independent School District No. 1

Full Case Name
Hansen v. Independent School District No. 1
Description

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.

Date
07-07-1939
Court
Idaho Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Idaho
Plaintiffs
Incident Location
Lewiston, ID
Disputed Act

A school district leased its field to a baseball team which played night games, shining beacon lights into the windows of the neighboring resident, which disturbed his sleep.

Holding
The court held that the defendant school district allowed a nuisance for the plaintiff 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 issued restraining defendant from causing light to shine onto the plaintiff's residence.

Asselin v. Town of Conway

Full Case Name
Michael Asselin, d/b/a Mario's Restaurant, & a. v. Town of Conway; Town of Conway v. Cardiff & Company
Description

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.

Date
07-02-1993
Court
New Hampshire Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Hampshire
Plaintiffs
Incident Location
Carroll County, NH
Disputed Act

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.

Holding
The Court affirmed the trial court's decision 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's finding that the Town had not exceeded its authority under the State zoning enabling act "by relying exclusively on the promotion of aesthetic values for its exercise of zoning power." The Court affirmed the injunction issued by the trial court enforcing the sign illumination ordinance against one of the plaintiff's signs.

CBS Outdoor v. Lebanon Plan. Bd.

Full Case Name
CBS OUTDOOR, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. BOROUGH OF LEBANON PLANNING BOARD/BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Description

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 Court reversed the trial court's decision in favor of plaintiff because it found the trial court did not provide sufficient deference to the Board's finding that light spillover was a justifiable concern and that the plaintiff's illumination compliance with the zoning code was imperfect.

Date
07-22-2010
Court
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction
New Jersey
Plaintiffs
Incident Location
Hunterdon, NJ
Disputed Act

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.

Holding
The Court reversed the trial court's decision in favor of plaintiff becuase it found the trial court did not provide sufficient deference to the Borough of Lebanon Planning Board/Board of Adjustment's finding that light spillover was a justifiable concern and that the plaintiff's illumination compliance was imperfect.

St. Joseph's High School, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission

Full Case Name
ST. JOSEPH'S HIGH SCHOOL, INC., et al. v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF TRUMBULL
Description

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."

Date
09-19-2017
Court
Connecticut Appellate Court
Jurisdiction
Connecticut
Incident Location
Fairfield, CT
Disputed Act

Plaintiff private school filed an application for a special permit with the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trumball (Commission) for the installation of four light poles, seventy feet in height, to illuminate the school’s primary athletic field. The Comission denied the special permit after considering concerns from resident neighbors of the private school that allowing the lights would adversely affect the "use and enjoyment" of their properties.

Holding
The Court vacated the lower court's decision which allowed plaintiff's case against the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trumball. The Court remanded the case to the lower court with instructions to dismiss the case because "a zoning commission has discretion to determine whether a proposal satisfies the requirements for a special permit" and "judicial review is confined to the question of whether the commission
abused its discretion in finding that an applicant failed to demonstrate compliance."
Disposition

Okinawa Dugong v. Mattis

Full Case Name
OKINAWA DUGONG (DUGONG DUGON), et al., Plaintiffs, v. James N MATTIS, et al., Defendants.
Description

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.

Date
08-01-2018
Court
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Jurisdiction
United States
Plaintiffs
Incident Location
Okinawa, Japan
Disputed Act

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.

Holding
The Court held that DOD did not violate the National Historic Preservation Act by not consulting directly with Plaintiffs about the impact on the dugong, 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.
Disposition

Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Env't v. Jewell

Full Case Name
DINÉ CITIZENS AGAINST RUINING OUR ENVIRONMENT; San Juan Citizens Alliance; WildEarth Guardians; and Natural Resources Defense Council, Plaintiffs, v. Sally JEWELL, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior; United States Bureau of Land Management, an agency within the United States Department of the Interior; and Neil Kornze, in his official capacity as Director of the United States Bureau of Land Management, Defendants, and WPX Energy Production, LLC; Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc.; BP America Company; ConocoPhillips Company; Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company LP; American Petroleum Institute; and Anschutz Exploration Corporation, Intervenor-Defendants.
Description

Environmental activists brought action against the federal government challenging Bureau of Land Management's approval of applications for drill permits in the San Juan Basin as in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Court held BLM's approval of applications did not violate NEPA nor NHPA, and dismissed the case.

Date
04-23-2018
Court
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
Jurisdiction
United States
Incident Location
San Juan County, NM; McKinley County, NM
Disputed Act

Environmental activists brought action against federal government challenging the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approval of applications for permit to drill in the San Juan Basin, alleging that BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to analyze indirect effects of fracking on Chaco Park, a National Historic site, including light pollution from nighttime drilling activity.

Holding
The Court found that the Board of Land Management's approval of applications for drilling permits did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act and failure to consider effects of gas and oil wells in Chaco Park and satellites did not violate the National Historic Preservation Act.
Disposition

C.N. Diefenderfer and B.A. Diefenderfer, his wife v. Palmer Twp. Board of Supervisors

Full Case Name
Charles N. DIEFENDERFER and Betsy A. Diefenderfer, his wife, Appellants v. PALMER TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Description

Palmer Township Board of Supervisor (Board) enacted a zoning ordinance to allow digital advertising signs and billboard. The Board then later amended the number of hours the digital billboards could be illuminated, from 17 to 24 horus a day without providing notice. The Court reversed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's case, finding that because the change to the zoning ordinance resulted in a deprivation of plaintiffs' right to the use and enjoyment of their property, the change was a “substantial amendment” and the Township was required to advertise the change prior to enactment of the ordinance,

Date
11-10-2015
Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania
Plaintiffs
Incident Location
Northampton County, PA
Disputed Act

Palmer Township Board of Supervisor (Board) enacted a zoning ordinance to allow digital advertising signs and billboard. The Board then later amended the number of hours the digital billboards could be illuminated, from 17 to 24 horus a day without providing notice. Plaintiff residents of the Township filed a "land use appeal" with the trial court, arguing that the Board's amended hours for digital sign illumination represented a "substantial amendment" to the ordinance which required additional notice requirements. The trial court had found the plaintiffs' "use and enjoyment" of their property had been impacted by the erection of a digital billboard near them as it illuminated their bedrooms at night which interfered with their ability to sleep. However, the trial court found held that the illumination hours change to the ordinance was not substantial and so the Township was not required to advertise a summary of the change.

Holding
The Court reversed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's case, finding that because the change to the zoning ordinance resulted in a deprivation of plaintiffs' right to the use and enjoyment of their property, the change was a “substantial amendment” and the Township was required to advertise the change prior to enactment of the ordinance,
Disposition

Town of Superior v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service

Full Case Name
The TOWN OF SUPERIOR, a Colorado municipality, City of Golden, Colorado, WildEarth Guardians, Rocky Mountain Wild, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, United States Department of the Interior, Ken Salazar, acting in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior, Daniel M. Ashe, acting in official capacity as Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Steve Guertin, acting in his official capacity as Regional Director of the Mountain-Prairie Region of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Steve Berendzen, acting in his official capacity as Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Manager, Defendants, and The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Jefferson, Colorado, City of Arvada, Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority, Natural Resource Trustees of the State of Colorado, and the Board of Land Commissioners of the State of Colorado, Defendant-Intervenors
Description

The Court found that, in approving the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority’s proposal, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service complied with the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Rocky Flats Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act.

Date
12-21-2012
Court
United States District Court for the District of Colorado
Jurisdiction
United States
Incident Location
Jefferson, CO; Boulder, CO; Broomfield, CO
Disputed Act

Plaintiffs alleged that the approval by the defendant United States Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) of the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority (JPPHA) application violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Rocky Flats Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. Plaintiffs sought an order holding unlawful and setting aside the FWS’ decision to enter into the land exchange and transfer the corridor to JPPHA. The plaintiffs' concerns about the highway include "increased noise and artificial light" which could negatively impact wildlife by "interfering with the ability to avoid danger, locate food, reproduce, migrate, avoid collisions, and evade predators."

Holding
The Court found that, in approving the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority’s proposal, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service complied with the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Rocky Flats Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. The Court dismissed the case.
Disposition

New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation

Full Case Name
State of NEW YORK, New York State Racing and Wagering Board, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and Town of Southampton, Plaintiffs, v. The SHINNECOCK INDIAN NATION, Frederick C. Bess, Lance A. Gumbs, Randall King, and Karen Hunter, Defendants; Town of Southampton, Plaintiff, v. The Shinnecock Tribe a/k/a the Shinnecock Indian Nation, Frederick C. Bess, Lance A. Gumbs, and Randall King, Defendants
Description

The Court found that construction and use of the proposed casino would have "potential long-term adverse impacts" to "land use" resulting from "lighting, noise, traffic, litter, the presence of multi-story buildings, the absence of buffers, and other operational characterstics of a casino." The Court also found that "lights, noise and activity" would disturb the nearby wildlife, "further degrading the woodlands' value as a habitat." The Court concluded that the State of NY and other plaintiffs had demonstrated that they were entitled to a permanent injunction that prevented the development of a casino by the Shinnecock Tribe.

Date
02-07-2008
Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Jurisdiction
United States
Defendants
Incident Location
Suffolk County, NY
Disputed Act

The State of NY and other governmental plantiffs sought to permanently enjoin the Shinnecock Tribe from constructing a casino on a "non-reservation property" in the Town of Southamptom because they claim it would not be in compliance with New York anti-gaming and environmental laws, as well as concerns about the proposed casino development's health and enviromental effects on neighboring landowners and the Town.

Holding
The Court found that construction and use of the proposed casino would have "potential long-term adverse impacts" to "land use" resulting from "lighting, noise, traffic, litter, the presence of multi-story buildings, the absence of buffers, and other operational characterstics of a casino." The Court also found that "lights, noise and activity" would disturb the nearby wildlife, "further degrading the woodlands' value as a habitat." The Court concluded that the State of NY and other plaintiffs had demonstrated that they were entitled to a permanent injunction that prevented the development of a casino by the Shinnecock Tribe. The Court then ordered further proceedings to determine a judgment about the permanent injunction.
Disposition

EQT Production v. Boro of Jefferson Hills, Aplt.

Full Case Name
EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY and ET Blue Grass Clearing, LLC, Appellees v. BOROUGH OF JEFFERSON HILLS, Appellant
Description

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.

Date
05-31-2019
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania
Plaintiffs
Incident Location
Allegheny Township, PA
Disputed Act

Plaintiff company applied for a conditional use permit to construct a natural gas production complex within the Borough of Jefferson Hills (the Borough). In deciding against the permit, the Borough considered as evidence the testimony of residents of another municipality regarding the impacts to their health, quality of life, and property which they attributed to a similar facility constructed and operated by the same company in their municipality. Part of the residents' concerns from the other municipality was about bright lights and light pollution coming from the company's construction site.

Holding
The Court vacated the lower court's finding that the testimonial evidence of the residents from the other municipality about the effects of the company's construction site in their municipality was "speculative" and instead found that evidence to be "relevant and probative" to the municipality in this case denying the same company a conditional use permit for a construction site. The Court remanded the case to the lower court with instructions to reconsider its decision in light of the Court's opinion.
Disposition