The Department of Defense (DOD) approved the construction of a military base in Okinawa. Japanese groups brought action against DOD for not considering the impact on the Okinawa dugong, including night lighting. The Court held that DOD did not violate the National Historic Preservation Act by not consulting directly with Plaintiffs, or by relying on academic experts instead of cultural practitioners. The Court also found that DOD's determination that the construction would not negatively affect the dugong was not arbitrary or capricious. The Court dismissed the case.
The US Department of Defense (DOD) approved the construction of a new military base in Okinawa. Japanese citizens and organizations brought action against the DOD for not considering the impact on the Okinawa dugong. Construction activities would require night lighting, which the Japanese environmental impact statement anticipated would not negatively affect the dugongs because the project would take preventive measures such as lighting cones.
Residential neighbors challenged ordinance which allowed oil and gas operations and permit issued for a gas well nearby pursuant to the ordinance. The Court held that landowners failed to establish that natural gas drilling was incompatible within the zoning district or that the ordinance violated Environmental Rights Amendment to Pennsylvania Constitution; Zoning board was not required to perform pre-enactment environmental studies.
Residential neighbors challenged zoning ordinance which allowed oil and gas operations and permit issued for a gas well nearby pursuant to the ordinance. Some of the objections of the neighbors were that the zoning ordinance did not adeuately protect the local water supply, limit noise, or reduce light pollution.
Environmental activists brought action against the federal government challenging Bureau of Land Management's approval of applications for drill permits in the San Juan Basin as in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Court held BLM's approval of applications did not violate NEPA nor NHPA, and dismissed the case.
Environmental activists brought action against federal government challenging the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approval of applications for permit to drill in the San Juan Basin, alleging that BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to analyze indirect effects of fracking on Chaco Park, a National Historic site, including light pollution from nighttime drilling activity.
Plaintiff filed a private nuisance suit against defendant company, alleging its drilling and gas exploration activities caused light pollution and noise which interfered with the use and enjoyment of her private property. The Court denied defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to plaintiffs intentional private nuisance claim because it found there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether its activities constituted a private nuisance.
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.
Plaintiffs brought suit against Defendant companies, which held leasehold rights to develop oil and gas underlying the plaintiffs' properities, as they alleged the shale development by defendants caused them to lose the "use and enjoyment" of their properties. The Court affirmed the lower court's summary judgment in favor of defendant companies because it agreed with the finding that "effects on the surface owners resulting from the horizontal drilling were within the implied rights to use the surface granted by virtue of the severance deeds, and did not impose a substantial burden on the surface owners."
Defendant companies has leasehold rights to develop oil and gas underlying various properties in Harrison County, including surface properties that are owned or resided on by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs brought suit because they alleged that the defendants' development of the shale had caused them to lose "the use and enjoyment" of their properties due to "excessive heavy equipment and truck traffic, diesel fumes and other emissions from the trucks, gas fumes and odors, vibrations, noise, lights, and dust."
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 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.
The Court found the testimonial evidence of the residents from the other municipality about the effects of the company's construction site in their municipality to be "relevant and probative" to the municipality in this case denying the same company a conditional use permit for a construction site. Part of the residents' concerns from the other municipality was about bright lights and light pollution coming from the company's construction site.
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.