artificial light

Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Env't v. Bernhardt

Full Case Name
DINE CITIZENS AGAINST RUINING OUR ENVIRONMENT; San Juan Citizens Alliance; WildEarth Guardians; Natural Resources Defense Council, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. David BERNHARDT, in His Official Capacity as Acting 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; Neil Kornze, in His Official Capacity as Director of the United States Bureau of Land Management, Defendants-Appellees, and DJR Energy Holdings, LLC; BP America Production Company; American Petroleum Institute; Anschutz Exploration Corporation; Enduring Resources IV, LLC, Intervenor Defendants-Appellees, and ConocoPhillips Company; Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company LP, Intervenor Defendants. All Pueblo Council of Governors; National Trust for Historic Preservation; Navajo Allottees; Alice Benally; Lilly Comanche; Virginia Harrison ; Samuel Harrison; Dolora Hesuse; Verna Martinez; Loyce Phoenix, Amici Curiae.
Description

Environmental activists brought action against federal government challenging Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approval of applications for permit to drill fracked wells on public lands, alleging that BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Nationa Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). District Court judged in favor of BLM; activists appealed. Activists had standing to bring action; environmental assessments adequately analyzed cumulative effects of granting drill applications as required by NEPA; activists failed to show BLM acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

Date
05-07-2019
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction
United States
Incident Location
San Juan County, NM; McKinley County, NM
Disputed Act

Environmental activists brought action against federal government challenging Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approval of applications for permit to drill fracked wells on public lands, alleging that BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Nationa Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). District Court judged in favor of BLM; activists appealed.

Holding
Activists had standing to bring action; environmental assessments adequately analyzed cumulative effects of granting drill applications as required by NEPA; activists failed to show BLM acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

Blue Ink, Ltd. v. Two Farms, Inc.

Full Case Name
BLUE INK, LTD. v. TWO FARMS, INC. d/b/a Royal Farms, Inc.
Description

Plaintiff company brought a suit for private nuisance against defendant gas station due to illumination intereference by the gas station on plaintiff's plans to expand its drive-in theater experience. The Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment to set aside the trial court's judgment and damages awarded in favor of plaintiff due to legally insufficient evidence to support a private nuisance claim against defendant.

Date
07-30-2014
Court
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction
Maryland
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Middle River, MD
Disputed Act

Plaintiff company brought a suit for private nuisance against defendant gas station due to illumination intereference by the gas station on plaintiff's plans to expand its drive-in theater experience. The jury in the trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff, awarding damages because plaintiff had to build a fence to block out the illumination. The circuit court found there was insufficient evidence for a jury to find a private nuisance, set the jury’s verdict aside, and entered judgment in favor of defendant.

Holding
The Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment to set aside the trial court's judgement in favor of Blue Ink (dba Bengies) due to legally insufficient evidence to support a private nuisance claim and damages against defendant.
Disposition