commerical lighting

Nugent v. Melville Shoe Corp.

Full Case Name
Nugent et al. v. Melville Shoe Corp.
Description

The court found that lights turned on after midnight by a defendant corporation was considered a nuisance to a plaintiffs' neighboring residential property in that it deprived the plaintiffs of the reasonable use of their property and disturbed their sleep.

Date
10-26-1932
Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Worcester, MA
Disputed Act

Melville Shoe Corp. maintainted a row of nitrogen lights in its building that were turned on at night, shining into the bedroom windows of the neighboring property, which disturbed the sleep of the the owners.

Holding
The court held that the unreasonable use of the nitrogen lights by the defendant after midnight caused a nuisance for the plaintiffs and found it was proper ground for equitable relief, presumably sending it down to the lower court for determining the specific equitable relief for the plaintiffs.

Shelburne, Inc. v. Crossan Corp.

Full Case Name
Shelburne, Inc., v. Crossan Corp. and R.C. Maxwell Co.
Description

The court found that an illuminated sign created light trespass on a neighboring hotel, which was considered a nuisance that materially affected their guests at night. The court restrained the business from operating the sign after midnight.

Date
11-21-1923
Court
Chancery Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction
New Jersey
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Atlantic City, NJ
Disputed Act

R.C. Maxwell Co., rents the roof of Crossan Co.'s building for the purpose of putting up signs. One of the signs is illuminated and its light shines on the bedroom windows of the neighboring building, the Shelburne hotel. The Shelburne hotel's complaint is that this light trespass from the illuminated sign detrimentally affects their business because it disturbs their guests.

Holding
The court held that Shelburne, inc. is entitled to a decree against R.C. Maxwell Co. restraining the operation of the electric sign, but only during the night and only after the hour of midnight.
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

Haaf v. Zoning Hearing Board

Full Case Name
Ralph D. HAAF, John J. Angelino and Diane M. Angelino, Robert C. Rupp, George D. Haaf, II, and Tamilee Haaf, and David Musselman v. The ZONING HEARING BOARD OF the TOWNSHIP OF WEISENBERG. Appeal of ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, LTD., Appellant
Description

The Court reversed the the trial court's order denying plaintiff's appeal from the Zoning Hearing Board's decision to revoke plaintiff's building permit for its billboard, finding that the objectors' appeal from the issuance of the building permit for the plaintiff's sign was untimely filed. The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that plaintiff waived its right to pursue a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Zoning Ordinance when plaintiff entered into a compromise agreement with the Zoning Hearing Board regarding the billboard's lighting restrictions, position, height, size and number of advertising faces.

Date
05-21-1993
Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania
Plaintiffs
Incident Location
Lehigh County, PA
Disputed Act

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.

Holding
The Court reversed the the trial court's order denying plaintiff's appeal from the Zoning Hearing Board's decision to revoke plaintiff's building permit for its billboard, finding that the objectors' appeal from the issuance of the building permit for the plaintiff's sign was untimely filed. The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that plaintiff waived its right to pursue a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Zoning Ordinance when plaintiff entered into a compromise agreement with the Zoning Hearing Board regarding the billboard's lighting restrictions, position, height, size and number of advertising faces.