The court found that the service station created a nuisance for its neighboring resident because it allowed light from its customers' headlights using its station at night to shine into the windows of the neighboring residence.
The individual plaintiff resided next to a property where the defendant had built a service station. The plaintiff alleged that headlights from the automobiles using the service station at night shined into his windows, which disturbed his sleep.
Property owner sought to rezone land from residential to business. Application was denied by County Board of Commissioners due to potential adverse effects. The court held that the property owner was entitled to de novo review by trial court.
Property owner sought to rezone property from residential to business to build service/gas station and was denied by County Board of Commissioners due to increased traffic, noise, and light pollution concerns. Property owner filed complaint alleging violation of substantive due process and confiscatory taking.
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.
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.