artificial light at night

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.

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.

Defendant company installed a light pole with a protective, adjustable shield in its parking area so that its light shines up into the plaintiff's bedroom windows of his residence at night. Plaintiff requested that defendant adjust the shield so that the light was not directed into plaintiff's windows, but defendant refused. Plaintiff then filed a nuisance suit, claiming that defendant's light pole with shielding caused "excessive light." The trial court dismissed the nuisance suit because it found that defendant's light was in compliance with the City's Code.

Plaintiff filed a suit against defendant company, alleging its drilling and gas exploration activities constituted a private nuisance because it interfered with the use and enjoyment of her private property. Part of plaintiff's nuisance claim is about construction lights placed near her home, which she testified at trial ran twenty-four hours a day and prevented her from sleeping.

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.

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."

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.

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.

The City of Chula Vista formulated a development plan for its bayfront. The California Coastal Commission found the City's plan to be in conflict with the California Coastal Act, which required local governments within coastal zones to develop plans that would protect coastal resource areas. Specifically, the California Coastal Commission found that excessive light pollution from the city's proposed development would adversely impact native species in the costal zone.

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.