Light trespass, a subset of light pollution, occurs when artificial light from one property intrudes onto another, causing unreasonable discomfort or interference with property enjoyment. In Texas, where urban expansion and industrial activities often encroach on residential areas, light trespass has led to significant legal disputes. These cases are primarily addressed under common law nuisance principles, as Texas lighting regulations lack a specific statewide statute targeting light trespass. The Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 425 regulates state-funded outdoor lighting to minimize light pollution, but private disputes rely on nuisance law, requiring plaintiffs to prove substantial and unreasonable interference.

Below, I present a detailed examination of the 13 known Texas court cases related to light trespass or light pollution, spanning from 1931 to 2017. Each case is analyzed for its legal context, the nature of the light-related claims, the relief sought, and the court’s resolution. These cases provide critical insights into the legal standards and challenges associated with light trespass litigation in Texas.

Case-by-Case Analysis

1. Aruba Petroleum, Inc. v. Parr (2017)

• Citation: Unpublished, 2017 WL 462340
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District
• Summary: Homeowners, including Lisa Parr and Robert Parr, filed a nuisance lawsuit against Aruba Petroleum, Inc., alleging that the company’s natural gas operations in the Barnett Shale caused light pollution, among other issues like air contamination and noise, which harmed their health and property enjoyment.
• Relief Sought: Damages for personal injuries, mental anguish, and property damage.
• Resolution: The trial court initially awarded $2.9 million, finding an intentional nuisance. However, the appellate court reversed, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to prove Aruba knew or intended the interference, a requirement for intentional nuisance under Texas law (Aruba Petroleum, Inc. v. Parr).
• Significance: This case underscores the high burden of proving intent in light tresspass and nuisance claims, particularly when light pollution is one of several alleged harms. It highlights the need for clear evidence linking the defendant’s actions to the interference.

2. Schmitz v. Denton County Cowboy Church (2017)

• Citation: Unpublished, 2017 WL 3821886
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, Second District
• Summary: Neighbors, including Peter Schmitz and others, sought to halt the construction of a rodeo arena by the Denton County Cowboy Church, citing light trespass from construction lights and anticipated future stadium lights that caused sleep disruption.
• Relief Sought: Declaratory relief and injunctions to stop construction and enforce zoning regulations.
• Resolution: The court found that only one plaintiff had standing, as his claim was ripe due to existing impacts from construction lights and issues from an adjacent older arena (Schmitz v. Denton Cnty. Cowboy Church).
• Significance: Standing and ripeness are critical hurdles in nuisance lighting litigation. This case shows that plaintiffs must demonstrate direct, ongoing harm to pursue light trespass claims, particularly in construction-related disputes.

3. Town of Dish v. Atmos Energy Corporation (2017)

• Citation: 519 S.W.3d 605
• Court: Supreme Court of Texas
• Summary: The Town of Dish and 18 residents sued multiple energy companies, including Atmos Energy, alleging that natural gas compressor stations caused light pollution, noise, and odors, leading to property value loss and physical injuries.
• Relief Sought: Damages for nuisance and trespass.
• Resolution: The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s dismissal, ruling that the claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations, as complaints began in 2006 but the lawsuit was filed in 2011 (Town of Dish v. Atmos Energy).
• Significance: This case emphasizes the importance of timely filing in nuisance cases. The court classified the nuisance as permanent due to its continuous nature, starting the limitations clock when the harm first occurred.

4. Bishop v. Chappell Hill Service Company, LLC (2015)

• Citation: Unpublished, 2015 WL 4591682
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, First District
• Summary: Property owners, including George M. Bishop, challenged a proposed wastewater treatment facility by Chappell Hill Service Company, LLC, citing potential light pollution and other environmental concerns.
• Relief Sought: Declaratory judgment to establish plaintiffs’ rights.
• Resolution: The court dismissed the claims as unripe, as the defendant had only applied for a Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) permit, making future impacts speculative (Bishop v. Chappell Hill).
• Significance: This case illustrates the ripeness doctrine, requiring concrete harm rather than hypothetical future impacts. It highlights the challenges of preemptive litigation in light pollution disputes.

5. Aaron v. Port of Houston Authority of Harris (2013)

• Citation: Unpublished, 2013 WL 4779716
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, First District
• Summary: Ninety homeowners sued the Port of Houston Authority, alleging that light and other pollution from a container terminal constituted a taking under Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution, impairing their property enjoyment.
• Relief Sought: Damages for a constitutional taking.
• Resolution: The court denied the claims, ruling that pollution from public works, such as light pollution, is a non-compensable community injury (Aaron v. Port of Houston).
• Significance: This case clarifies that public infrastructure-related pollution is often considered a shared community burden, limiting compensable claims under takings law.

6. Port of Houston Authority v. Aaron (2013)

• Citation: 415 S.W.3d 355
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, First District
• Summary: In a related case to Aaron v. Port of Houston, plaintiffs brought light trespass nuisance claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) for property damage and personal injury due to light and other pollution from the same container terminal.
• Relief Sought: Damages.
• Resolution: The court denied the claims, finding that the property damage was a general community harm, not compensable under the TTCA, and personal injury claims failed as they only alleged mental anguish, which is not actionable under common law (Port of Houston v. Aaron).
• Significance: This case reinforces the limitations of TTCA claims for light pollution, emphasizing that only specific, actionable harms qualify for relief.

7. Spicewood Springs Road Tunnel Coalition v. Leffingwell (2013)

• Citation: Unpublished, 2013 WL 2631750
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, Third District
• Summary: Residents, including the Spicewood Springs Road Tunnel Coalition, sued Austin city officials, alleging that a city-approved project violated the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, with construction lights causing light trespass that harmed property value and aesthetic enjoyment.
• Relief Sought: Injunctive relief to halt the project.
• Resolution: The court found that residents alleged a particularized injury sufficient for standing (Spicewood Springs v. Leffingwell).
• Significance: This case highlights the importance of establishing standing through specific harm, particularly in disputes involving municipal projects. It also shows the potential for injunctive relief in light trespass cases.
  
  Austin’s street lighting system, a complex blend of safety, aesthetics, and environmental considerations, showcases both the benefits of enhanced public safety and vibrant nightlife, as well as challenges like light pollution and inadequate lighting in some neighborhoods. From energy-efficient LED upgrades to community concerns about glare and safety, the city is actively exploring smart lighting solutions to balance functionality with sustainability. Learn more about Austin’s lighting infrastructure.

8. C.C. Carlton Industries, Ltd. v. Blanchard (2010)

• Citation: 311 S.W.3d 654
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, Fourth District
• Summary: Property owners sued C.C. Carlton Industries, Ltd. and KB Homes Lone Star, L.P., alleging that bright lights used for nighttime construction caused light trespass, disrupting their sleep.
• Relief Sought: Damages for nuisance.
• Resolution: The court granted damages, finding that the bright lights constituted an extreme nuisance (C.C. Carlton v. Blanchard).
• Significance: This case is a key example of a successful light trespass claim, demonstrating that severe interference, such as sleep disruption, can warrant damages. It underscores the importance of responsible lighting practices during construction.

9. Schneider National Carriers, Inc. v. Bates (2004)

• Citation: 147 S.W.3d 264
• Court: Supreme Court of Texas
• Summary: Property owners, including Andrea L. Bates, sued industrial plant operators, alleging that light pollution, along with air contaminants and noise, interfered with their property enjoyment.
• Relief Sought: Damages for nuisance and other claims.
• Resolution: The court dismissed the claims as time-barred, classifying the nuisance as permanent due to its continuous nature, with the statute of limitations starting when the nuisance began (Schneider v. Bates).
• Significance: This case clarifies the distinction between temporary and permanent nuisances, impacting the timing of legal action. It emphasizes the need for prompt filing in continuous nuisance cases.

10. Texas Dept. of Transp. v. City of Sunset Valley (2004)

• Citation: 146 S.W.3d 637
• Court: Supreme Court of Texas
• Summary: The City of Sunset Valley and its mayor sued the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) over highway expansion, alleging light pollution through nuisance and equal protection claims.
• Relief Sought: Damages.
• Resolution: The court ruled that TxDOT’s sovereign immunity barred nuisance claims, and the equal protection claim failed as all residents suffered the same light pollution (Texas Dept. of Transp. v. Sunset Valley).
• Significance: Sovereign immunity poses a significant barrier to claims against government entities, and equal protection claims require evidence of disparate treatment, which was absent here.

11. GTE Mobilnet of South Texas Ltd. Partnership v. Pascouet (2001)

• Citation: 61 S.W.3d 599
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, Fourteenth District
• Summary: Homeowners Adrien and Chantal Pascouet sued GTE Mobilnet and the city, alleging that floodlights from a cell phone tower’s equipment building illuminated their backyard all night, constituting a nuisance.
• Relief Sought: Damages and a permanent injunction.
• Resolution: The court awarded damages, finding the tower and lights a nuisance, but denied the injunction as the issues were mitigated (GTE Mobilnet v. Pascouet).
• Significance: This case demonstrates that light trespass from commercial structures can be actionable, but mitigation efforts can influence the availability of injunctive relief.

12. Lamesa Co-op. Gin v. Peltier (1961)

• Citation: 342 S.W.2d 613
• Court: Texas Court of Civil Appeals, Seventh District
• Summary: Early Peltier sued Lamesa Cooperative Gin, alleging that the proposed construction and operation of a cotton gin would cause a nuisance due to glaring lights interfering with home enjoyment.
• Relief Sought: Injunction against construction and operation.
• Resolution: The court granted the injunction, finding substantial evidence of a nuisance (Lamesa Co-op. Gin v. Peltier).
• Significance: This case is notable for allowing preemptive action against a proposed nuisance, showing that courts may intervene before harm occurs if evidence is compelling.

13. Weber v. Mann (1931)

• Citation: 42 S.W.2d 492
• Court: Texas Court of Civil Appeals, Third District
• Summary: Homeowners sued a beer garden operator, alleging that excessive light from the establishment caused health damage and reduced property value.
• Relief Sought: Permanent injunction.
• Resolution: The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order allowing lights with contradictory specifications, finding them unclear and unenforceable.
• Significance: As one of the earliest light trespass cases, this ruling highlights the need for clear and enforceable remedies in nuisance disputes, setting a historical precedent.

Table of Cases

Legal Context

In Texas, light trespass is addressed through nuisance law, defined as a condition that substantially interferes with land use and enjoyment, causing unreasonable discomfort to persons of ordinary sensibilities (Texas Law Help). Courts focus on the impact rather than the defendant’s intent, requiring plaintiffs to prove substantial and unreasonable interference. Local ordinances, such as Mansfield’s prohibition on lighting causing light trespass (Mansfield Ordinance), provide additional regulatory frameworks, but private disputes rely on common law. The Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 425 applies to state-funded lighting but not private disputes.

Challenges in Identifying Additional Cases

Extensive research did not uncover any cases beyond the 13 included in this article. Several factors explain this:

• Unpublished Opinions: Cases like Aruba Petroleum and Schmitz are unpublished, limiting public access without specialized databases like Westlaw or LexisNexis.
• Bundled Claims: Light trespass is often one of multiple nuisance issues, complicating identification in public records.
• Settlements: Many disputes may resolve out of court, reducing reported cases.
• Post-2017 Gap: No notable cases post-2017 were found, possibly due to increased local regulations or fewer litigated disputes.

A 2018 study by Harvard Law School student Iris Zhou for the International Dark-Sky Association identified these 13 cases as the primary light pollution lawsuits in Texas (along with many other cases outside Texas), suggesting the list is comprehensive up to that point (DarkSky Study). More recent cases may exist in unpublished opinions or local court records. If you know of any cases I left out or find new ones, please feel free to let me know at rick@sapienlighting.com.

Recommendations

For those seeking additional cases or facing light trespass issues:

• Legal Databases: Access Westlaw or LexisNexis for unpublished opinions.
• Environmental Law Firms: Consult firms like The Sher Law Firm or The Lanier Law Firm for case studies.
• Local Ordinances: Review municipal codes in cities like San Antonio or Llano for enforcement actions (Hill Country Alliance).
• DarkSky Texas: Engage with organizations like DarkSky Texas for advocacy and updates.

Citations

• Aruba Petroleum, Inc. v. Parr, 2017 WL 462340
• Schmitz v. Denton County Cowboy Church, 2017 WL 3821886
• Town of Dish v. Atmos Energy Corporation, 519 S.W.3d 605
• Bishop v. Chappell Hill Service Company, LLC, 2015 WL 4591682
• Aaron v. Port of Houston Authority of Harris, 2013 WL 4779716
• Port of Houston Authority v. Aaron, 415 S.W.3d 355
• Spicewood Springs Road Tunnel Coalition v. Leffingwell, 2013 WL 2631750
• C.C. Carlton Industries, Ltd. v. Blanchard, 311 S.W.3d 654
• Schneider National Carriers, Inc. v. Bates, 147 S.W.3d 264
• Texas Dept. of Transp. v. City of Sunset Valley, 146 S.W.3d 637
• GTE Mobilnet of South Texas Ltd. Partnership v. Pascouet, 61 S.W.3d 599
• Lamesa Co-op. Gin v. Peltier, 342 S.W.2d 613
• Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 425
• Bad Neighbors: What Is Nuisance?
• Mansfield Prohibited Lighting Ordinance
• Harvard Law School Light Pollution Study
• Hill Country Alliance: Night Sky Ordinances
• DarkSky Texas: Light Pollution Issues