billboard and sign illumination

Defendant business owners had signs on the inside of their stores illuminated by neon, which violated the Long Hill Township's ordinance regulating signs. The trial court upheld the constitutionality of the ordinance and found each defendant guilty of violating the ordinance. Defendants appealed their convictions.

The plaintiff company failed to obtain a permit from the Town of Columbus prior to installing a new sign for its McDonald's Restaurant. The Township sent the company a Notice of Violation because it's sign violated the Town's sign ordinance by using "flashing and intermittent lights to display its messages."

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.

The City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment ("Board") granted a use permit to American Outdoor Advertising, Inc. ("American Outdoor") to operate an electronic billboard adjacent to Interstate 17. Plaintiff non-profits brought suit to enjoin the electronic billboard, alleging the billboard would violate Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 28-7903 (1998),[3] a provision of the Arizona Highway Beautification Act ("AHBA"), in part due to its intermittent lighting.

Defendants sought to replace an existing billboard on their property in a residential neighborhood. Plaintiffs, who live nearby defendant, brought suit requesting injunctive relief to enjoin defendant from keeping the new billboard in place. The plaintiffs alleged that the new billboard did not meet the requirements of G. L. c. 93 and 711 Code Mass. Regs. § 3.00 et seq. (2010) and that the new billboard was different from the old billboard because, among other things, it was lit with light-emitting diode (LED) lamps hidden and mounted at the bottom of the billboard’s catwalk, as opposed to the prior sign’s floodlights. The trial court judge credited the defendants’ evidence that the new billboard's LED lighting minimized “backwash lighting,” or “light trespass.”

Plaintiff residents of Philadelphia objected to the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) granting a variance to permit the Applicant, the Franklin Institute, to change its sign from vinyl to digital. The Franklin Institute had informed the ZBA it would agree to, among other things, reduce the sign’s brightness and equip the sign with automatic dimming control, which adjusts the sign’s light levels to changing conditions.

Proposition L was a ballot initiative that passed which prohibited the construction of additional billboards within Pomona city limits. Plaintiff, a non-profit composed of Pomona city residents formed to advocate for the enforcement of Proposition L, brought suit against the city of Pomona for entering into an extended agreement with Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (Regency) to allow Regency to erect advertising billboards alongside several Pomona freeways. Issues discussed at city council meetings regarding the extended agreement with Regency included "the locations of billboards in the City, types of digital signs, light emissions, and the possibility of negotiating the removal of the three additional signs."