commercial lighting

Nearby property owners brought special action aginst City regarding rezoning to construct a large chain discount store due to adverse effects. Court held that the property owners did not have taxpayer standing to challenge rezoning as their property was not located close enough to the parcel to show particularized harm.

Environmental activists brought action against the Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, and electric utility company for violating Clean Water Act (CWA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the process of obtaining a permit to construct a new coal-fired power plant. Court ruled that irreparable harm, balance of hardship, and public interest supported injunction.

Neighboring residents objected and filed complaint against Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (Commission) for plans to expand the Plainfield Service Plaza without conducting an environmental impact study. Court held that the Commission was potentially required to conduct an environmental impact study under the Clean Streams Law. The Court overruled the Commission's preliminary objections to the complaint and remanded the case to the trial court.

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.