general illumination

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.

Organizations and individuals who list, visit, and recreate near the proposed mines challenged agency decisions allowing Oregon Resources Corp. (ORC) to operate chromite mines. Court found that the plaintiffs did not show the injunction would be in the public interest or that ORC did not adequately address environmental concerns.

The City's Board of Adjustment denied the plaintiff's development because it determined that it was located in a "Conservation Overlay District" and subject to certain "performance controls" intended to protect important environmental resources within the city. After plaintiff filed an appeal of the Board's decision in court, adjacent property owners filed for intervention claiming that the development would result in increase traffic, light pollution, noise, and loss of value to their properties. Plaintiff objected that the intervenors lacked standing and the Court affirmed the lower court's finding that the intervenors had standing.

The Court vacated the Administration Commission decision, finding that reliance in part on neighboring landowner's layperson testimony regarding potential increase of traffic, litter, noise, and light pollution coming from the Recreational Vehicle Park/Campground was not considered substantial evidence. The Court also found that the County's ordinance amending the zoning plan did not make the zoning plan "internally inconsistent." The Court remanded the case to the Administration Commission for reinstatement of the ordinance allowing the Recreational Vehicle Park/Campground as an amended part of the County's zoning plan.

The Court vacated the lower court decision dismissing the plaintiffs' claim that the City's Board of Standards and Appeals had no proper basis for a variance of its Zone Resolution regulating illuminated roof signs. The City's variance would have allowed a store to erect on the roofs of its premises an illuminated sign which would have been one hundred feet long and twelve feet high. The Court found that the "permitted use of glaringly bright electric lights would be so annoying to occupants of adjacent properties used exclusively for residential purposes as practically to constitute a nuisance to them; it would also affect adversely the value of property in this residental district."

The Court found that defendant Wells Fargo Bank had breached its contract with plaintiff Minnesota Vikings Football Stadium by installing mounted illuminated signs on the rooftops of its office towers because the contract between the parties "unambiguously prohibits" this. The Court granted plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction requiring defendant to remove the mounted illuminated signs and prohibiting them from installing other mounted illuminated signs.

The Court held that Long Hill Township’s ordinance prohibiting neon commerical signs was an impermissible restriction on commercial advertising because there was no evidence of a "nexus between the aesthetics purposes and a total ban of neon." The Court vacated the lower court's decision finding the ordinance constitutional and also vacated defendants' convictions for violating the Township's ordinance.

The Court affirmed the trial court's conclusion that the plaintiff's illuminated sign does not violate the Town's ordinance because "the mere fact that the LEDs necessarily flash or move at the moment the sign is changing its advertising copy cannot be considered a violation of the other provisions of the ordinance" which prohibit flashing lights on signs. The Court reversed the trial court's order "to the extent it directs the Town to issue a permit for the sign without any limitations" and remanded the matter to the trial court.

The Court affirmed the lower court's decision that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the case. The Court reversed the lower court's holding that the City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment (the Board) "did not act in excess of its authority." The Court reversed on the merits because it found that the billboard approved by the Board violated the Arizona Highway Beautification Act due its intermittent lighting.

The Court affirmed the Circuit Court's order reversing the Dane County Board of Adjustment's decision to deny the University of Wisconsin-Madison the ability to build a build a radio station tower. The Court found that the University of Wisconsin-Madison's radio station tower is a "governmental use" so it meets the requirements of conditional use permit in the A-1 Agriculture District Exclusive under the Dane County Zoning Ordinance.