general illumination

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."

Plaintiffs, whose property is located within a zone over which aircraft from Arcata-Eureka Airport routinely fly, challenge the constitutionality of a Humboldt County general plan requirement that they provide an aircraft overflight easement as a condition for obtaining a building permit to make minor alterations to their residence, arguing that the easement requirement constitutes a taking of their property without payment of just compensation. The overflight easement grants the County the right to, among other things, "regulate or prohibit light emissions that might interfere with pilot vision."

Plaintiffs, owners of land near Hill Air Force Base, Utah, brought suit against the United States for compensation due to an avigation easement restricting the light, height of structures, smoke and electrical emissions coming from their land for the purpose of ensuring a safe flight path for aviators taking off and landing at the Air Force Base.

The City amended its Motor Vehicle Dealers Ordinance, which required used-car dealers to obtain a license for each location at which they sell cars and set boundaries about how close used-car dealerships can be to residential areas. The Ordinance stated in its preamble that its purpose was to curb any detrimental effects on the surrounding residential communities, including nighttime glare and light pollution. The City denied the plaintiffs a license under the amended Ordinance, the plaintiffs appealed, and the City denied that appeal. The plaintiffs sued the City, alleging that the denial of their license-application appeal violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Texas Constitutions.

Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the United States Forest Service from re-opening the "Canyon Mine" in Northern Arizona, alleging that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act and that the "valid existing rights determination" by the Forest Service failed to consider all relevant cost factors. Plaintiff's concerns about the re-opening of the mine involve environmental and historical impacts of the mine on Indigenous land surrounding the mine, as well as dust, truck traffic, light pollution and noise.

After plaintiff company purchased a parcel of land in the City of Simi Valley, plaintiff was denied a permit by the City to develop the property into a hotel. The City had concerns about the effects of noise, lights, and possible night-time disturbance to the residential area near the parcel if the parcel was developed commercially. The City then amended its General Plan so that the parcel could only be used for residential development. Plaintiff company challenged this redesignation as unconstitutional and in violation of state law.

Plaintiffs either live or work within 2 blocks of land purchased by the Seneca Nation of Indians (the Nation) from the City of Buffalo for the development of a gaming casino. The plaintiffs filed suit against the City of Buffalo for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the City from taking any actions toward approval or action upon the agreement about the land sale to the Nation for the building of a casino, alleging that an appropriate environmental review was not undertaken, and cited concerns about increased traffic, air pollution, light pollution, and noise from the construction of the casino.

The States of California and New Mexico sought to enjoin the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from instituting a rule suspending or delaying (the Suspension Rule) the requirements of the Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resourse Conservation Rule. A coalition of 17 conservation and tribal citizen groups also brought suit seeking the same preliminary injunction against BLM. The two cases were consolidated for review. Plaintiffs argued that without a preliminary injunction of the Suspension Rule, "they will suffer irreparable harm in the form of waste of publicly-owned natural gas, increased air pollution and related health impacts, exacerbated climate harms, and other environmental injury such as noise and light pollution."