commercial lighting

Defendant company installed a light pole with a protective, adjustable shield in its parking area so that its light shines up into the plaintiff's bedroom windows of his residence at night. Plaintiff requested that defendant adjust the shield so that the light was not directed into plaintiff's windows, but defendant refused. Plaintiff then filed a nuisance suit, claiming that defendant's light pole with shielding caused "excessive light." The trial court dismissed the nuisance suit because it found that defendant's light was in compliance with the City's Code.

The City's Board of Standards and Appeals granted a variance of its Zone Resolution, permitting the erection of an illuminated sign "one hundred feet long and twelve feet high on the roof of the premises of stores" in "a district zoned for residence purposes." The owners of adjacent apartment houses filed a suit against the City's Board of Standards and Appeals decision, claiming "that this enormous illuminated sign, burning throughout the night in the rear of their apartments, would have a most serious effect on their property, causing tenants to vacate."

Plaintiff Minnesota Vikings Football Stadium, LLC brought suit against defendant Wells Fargo Bank for breach of contract after Wells Fargo began installing mounted illuminated roof top signs on its office towers located next to the Stadium. The contract between parties had allowed rooftop signs for Wells Fargo, but did not state that the signs could be illuminated. Plaintiff alleged defendant's illuminated signs "adversely affected the Stadium's image" and sought a permanent injunction requiring defendant to remove the mounted illuminated signs and prohibiting them from installing other mounted illuminated signs.

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 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.

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."

Landowner applied to the town Board of Adjustment for a special use permit to develop a medical clinic. The Board denied the application based on concerns for the neighborhood, including light pollution from the parking lot.

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.

Property owner sought to rezone land adjacent to industrial park known as the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center ("Blue Sky") to be included as part of the park in order to develop land for light industrial use. Property had been designated as a buffer zone between Blue Sky and rural agricultural land. The Urban County Planning Commission denied the application because development of the land would increase surface water runoff, traffic hazards, water and light pollution, and would alter the visual and aesthetic character of the rural area. Property owner appealed.