state

Smalley v. Ohio Department of Transportation

Full Case Name
SMALLEY, v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 1
Description

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.

Date
03-15-2007
Court
Ohio Court of Claims
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Wyandot County, OH
Disputed Act

Plaintiff filed suit against the Ohio Department of Transportation because he alleged the "high mast" lighting it had installed on the roadway encroached upon his property and directly resulted in his soybean crop's inability to mature.

Holding
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.
Disposition

Newell v. Ohio Department of Transportation

Full Case Name
NEWELL, Plaintiff, v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant
Description

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.

Date
03-06-2007
Court
Ohio Court of Claims
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Wyandot County, OH
Disputed Act

Plaintiff filed suit against the Ohio Department of Transportation because he alleged the "high mast" lighting it had installed on the roadway encroached upon his property and directly resulted in his bean crop's inability to mature.

Holding
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. The Court ordered defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff.
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

State v. Calabria

Full Case Name
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, (LONG HILL TOWNSHIP), PLAINTIFF, v. CALABRIA, GILLETTE LIQUORS & DIANE'S COUNTRY KITCHEN, DEFENDANTS
Description

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.

Date
01-24-1997
Court
New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division
Jurisdiction
New Jersey
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Morris County, NJ
Disputed Act

Defendant business owners had signs on the inside of their stores illuminated by neon, which violated the Long Hill Township's ordinance regulating signs. The trial court upheld the constitutionality of the ordinance and found each defendant guilty of violating the ordinance. Defendants appealed their convictions.

Holding
The Court held that Long Hill Township’s ordinance prohibiting neon commerical signs to be 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.
Disposition

State v. Bureau of Land Mgmt.

Full Case Name
STATE of California, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, et al., Defendants. Sierra Club, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ryan Zinke, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants.
Description

The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the United States Bureau of Land Management from instituting the Suspension Rule regarding the Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resourse Conservation Rule.

Date
02-22-2018
Court
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Jurisdiction
United States
Incident Location
N/A
Disputed Act

The States of California and New Mexico sought to enjoin the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from instituting a rule suspending or delaying (the Suspension Rule) the requirements of the Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resourse Conservation Rule. A coalition of 17 conservation and tribal citizen groups also brought suit seeking the same preliminary injunction against BLM. The two cases were consolidated for review. Plaintiffs argued that without a preliminary injunction of the Suspension Rule, "they will suffer irreparable harm in the form of waste of publicly-owned natural gas, increased air pollution and related health impacts, exacerbated climate harms, and other environmental injury such as noise and light pollution."

Holding
The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the United States Bureau of Land Management from instituting the Suspension Rule in regards to the requirements of the Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resourse Conservation Rule. Specifically, the Court found that the Bureau of Land Management lacked in its reasoning using the Suspension Rule regarding the requirements of the Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resourse Conservation Rule. Further, the Court found that the plaintiffs showed they would suffer irreparable injury "caused by the waste of publicly owned natural gas, increased air pollution and associated health impacts, and exacerbated climate impacts."
Disposition

Dewberry v. Kulongoski

Full Case Name
Susan DEWBERRY, Carole Holcombe, Suzanne Danielson, Arnold Buchman, Don Heath, and Dale Schaffner, Plaintiffs, v. The Honorable Theodore R. KULONGOSKI, Governor of the State of Oregon, Other Executive Officers in the State of Oregon, and the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, Defendants
Description

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 Court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing and dismissed the case.

Date
12-21-2005
Court
United States District Court for the District of Oregon
Jurisdiction
United States
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Florence, Oregon
Disputed Act

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.

Holding
The District Court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Tribes' right to conduct gaming under the State of Oregon's gaming compact. The Court further held that the Tribes had not waived their sovereign immunity and had not consented to the suit. The Court dismissed the case.
Disposition

Bitterrooters for Planning, Inc. v. Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Full Case Name
BITTERROOTERS FOR PLANNING, INC., and BITTERROOT RIVER PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, INC. Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, an agency of the State of Montana, Defendant and Appellant, STEPHEN WANDERER and GEORGIA FILCHER, Defendants, Intervenors and Appellants
Description

The Court found that the Montana Department of Environmental Quality violated the Montana Environmental Policy Act because it only considered the environmental impacts to water quality of the construction and operation of the wastewater discharging permit issued to the facility.

Date
09-05-2017
Court
Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Montana
Defendants
Incident Location
Ravalli County, Montana
Disputed Act

The plaintiffs alleged that the Montana Department of Environmental Quality's wastewater discharge permitting process for an unnamed retail store facility violated the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) because it did not consider the environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the facility other than water quality. Public comments organized by the Department of Environmental Quality included light pollution, noise pollution, and soil pollution, as well as others.

Holding
The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reversed the District Court's summary judgment that Montana Department of Environmental Quality violated the Montana Environmental Policy Act because it did not consider the environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the facility other than water quality. The Court affirmed the District Court's summary judgment that the Department of Environmental Quality must identify and disclose the actual contemplated owner or operator of the retail store facility whose wasterwater discharge permitting was issued by the Department.

Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Full Case Name
DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK; Maya Van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper, Petitioners v. SECRETARY OF the PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Respondents. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., Intervenor
Description

Proposed natural gas pipeline project would impact wetlands. State found the project to be water dependent and the least environmentally damaging option. An environmental organization filed a petition for review. Court found that it has jurisdiction, State's interpretation of water dependency should be upheld, and that State's rejection of a compression alternative was reasonable and nonarbitrary.

Date
08-30-2017
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
United States
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Pike County, PA; Wayne County, PA
Disputed Act

A proposed interstate natural gas pipeline project would impact exceptional-value wetlands. The State found the project to be water dependent and the least environmentally damaging option. An environmental organization filed a petition for review.

Holding
The Court found that it has jurisdiction, the State's interpretation of water dependency should be upheld, and that the State's rejection of a compression alternative was reasonable and nonarbitrary, as the alternative would lead to light and noise pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Petition for review was denied.
Disposition

Texas Department of Transportation v. City of Sunset Valley

Full Case Name
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Michael W. Behrens, Robert L. Nichols, John W. Johnson, and Ric Williamson, Appellants, v. CITY OF SUNSET VALLEY, Terrance R. Cowan, and Donald Hurwitz, Appellees
Date
08-30-2002
Court
Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction
Texas
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Sunset Valley, TX
Disputed Act

City and city officials filed action against Texas Dept. of Transportation (TxDOT) concerning highway expansion. District Court awarded city damages and fees; declared TxDOT violated administrative regulations regarding noise and lighting, enjoined private nuisance, and enjoined equal protection violations from use of flood lights and failure to erect city limit signs.

Holding
Declaratory judgement that TxDOT and officials violated environmental regulations relating to noise and lighting from highway expansion was not warranted; Nuisance claims against TxDOT for use of high mast floodlights were not barred by sovereign immunity.

Kee v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

Full Case Name
Robert J. KEE, Ruth E. Kee, Ruth Mixell, Keith S. Koegel, Cynthia A. Koegel, Morgan B. Price and Darcie E. Frye, Petitioners, and Township of West Pennsboro, Intervenor Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION, Respondent
Description

Neighboring residents objected and filed complaint against Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (Commission) for plans to expand the Plainfield Service Plaza without conducting an environmental impact study. Court held that the Commission was potentially required to conduct an environmental impact study under the Clean Streams Law. The Court overruled the Commission's preliminary objections to the complaint and remanded the case to the trial court.

Date
11-20-1996
Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Plainfield, PA; West Penns-boro Township, PA
Disputed Act

Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission sought to expand the Plainfield Service Plaza. Neighboring residents objected and filed complaint due to failure to consider or study impacts of increased noise, air, and light pollution on the residential area caused by increased traffic and light towers. Commission filed preliminary objections.

Holding
Court overruled the Pennsylvanis Turnpike Commission's preliminary objections and held that the Commission was potentially required to conduct environmental impact study under Clean Streams Law. The Court remanded the case to the lower court.
Disposition