Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co. case brief
494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972)
SYNOPSIS:
Defendant appealed a judgment of the trial court (Arizona) permanently enjoining defendant from operating a cattle feedlot near plaintiff's residential development; plaintiff cross-appealed.
OVERVIEW: Defendant owned cattle feedlots prior to the construction of plaintiff's nearby residential development. Plaintiff sued defendant, claiming that the feedlots were a public nuisance because of the flies and odor that drifted toward the development. The trial court permanently enjoined defendant from operating the feedlots.
HOLDING:
The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court permanently enjoining the feedlot operations, holding that the feedlots were both a public and private nuisance.
ANALYSIS:
-A populous neighborhood was affected by the odor and flies, and the public's health was affected. -The court held, however, that plaintiff, having brought people to the nuisance to the foreseeable detriment of defendant, was required to indemnify defendant for his costs of relocating or shutting down the feedlots.
-The court, therefore, remanded the case for a hearing on the damages sustained by defendant.
RULES:
-The difference between a private nuisance and a public nuisance is generally one of degree.
-A private nuisance is one affecting a single individual or a definite small number of persons in the enjoyment of private rights not common to the public, while a public nuisance is one affecting the rights enjoyed by citizens as a part of the public.
-To constitute a public nuisance, the nuisance must affect a considerable number of people or an entire community or neighborhood.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment permanently enjoining defendant, holding that the feedlots were both a public and private nuisance. However, plaintiff, having brought people to the nuisance, was ordered to indemnify defendant for his damages proximately caused by the injunction. The case was remanded for further proceedings on damages issue.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972)
SYNOPSIS:
Defendant appealed a judgment of the trial court (Arizona) permanently enjoining defendant from operating a cattle feedlot near plaintiff's residential development; plaintiff cross-appealed.
OVERVIEW: Defendant owned cattle feedlots prior to the construction of plaintiff's nearby residential development. Plaintiff sued defendant, claiming that the feedlots were a public nuisance because of the flies and odor that drifted toward the development. The trial court permanently enjoined defendant from operating the feedlots.
HOLDING:
The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court permanently enjoining the feedlot operations, holding that the feedlots were both a public and private nuisance.
ANALYSIS:
-A populous neighborhood was affected by the odor and flies, and the public's health was affected. -The court held, however, that plaintiff, having brought people to the nuisance to the foreseeable detriment of defendant, was required to indemnify defendant for his costs of relocating or shutting down the feedlots.
-The court, therefore, remanded the case for a hearing on the damages sustained by defendant.
RULES:
-The difference between a private nuisance and a public nuisance is generally one of degree.
-A private nuisance is one affecting a single individual or a definite small number of persons in the enjoyment of private rights not common to the public, while a public nuisance is one affecting the rights enjoyed by citizens as a part of the public.
-To constitute a public nuisance, the nuisance must affect a considerable number of people or an entire community or neighborhood.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment permanently enjoining defendant, holding that the feedlots were both a public and private nuisance. However, plaintiff, having brought people to the nuisance, was ordered to indemnify defendant for his damages proximately caused by the injunction. The case was remanded for further proceedings on damages issue.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment