artificial night at light

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.

After plaintiff company purchased a parcel of land in the City of Simi Valley, plaintiff was denied a permit by the City to develop the property into a hotel. The City had concerns about the effects of noise, lights, and possible night-time disturbance to the residential area near the parcel if the parcel was developed commercially. The City then amended its General Plan so that the parcel could only be used for residential development. Plaintiff company challenged this redesignation as unconstitutional and in violation of state law.

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.