Prah v. Maretti case brief summary
321 N.W.2d 182 (Wis. 1982)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff's residence had a solar system that included collectors to supply energy for heat and hot water. Defendant purchased the lot adjacent to plaintiff's lot and commenced planning home construction. Plaintiff advised defendant that if home were built at proposed location, defendant's house would substantially and adversely affect plaintiff's solar system and could cause plaintiff other damage. Nevertheless, defendant began construction. Plaintiff filed a complaint and moved for a temporary injunction restraining and enjoining defendant's proposed construction. The complaint stated that plaintiff was entitled to unrestricted use of the sun and its solar power and demanded judgment for injunctive relief and damages.
DISCUSSION
The court found that plaintiff had stated a common law private nuisance claim upon which relief could be granted and reversed the trial court's ruling of summary judgment.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed and remanded, finding the plaintiff stated a claim of common law private nuisance upon which relief could be granted and thus summary judgment was not appropriate.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Property Law
321 N.W.2d 182 (Wis. 1982)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff appealed judgment of the
Circuit Court for Waukesha County (Wisconsin) granting summary
judgment for defendant on plaintiff's claim that defendant neighbor
was blocking his access to unobstructed sunlight; court ruled that
plaintiff presented no claim from which relief could be granted.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff's residence had a solar system that included collectors to supply energy for heat and hot water. Defendant purchased the lot adjacent to plaintiff's lot and commenced planning home construction. Plaintiff advised defendant that if home were built at proposed location, defendant's house would substantially and adversely affect plaintiff's solar system and could cause plaintiff other damage. Nevertheless, defendant began construction. Plaintiff filed a complaint and moved for a temporary injunction restraining and enjoining defendant's proposed construction. The complaint stated that plaintiff was entitled to unrestricted use of the sun and its solar power and demanded judgment for injunctive relief and damages.
DISCUSSION
The court found that plaintiff had stated a common law private nuisance claim upon which relief could be granted and reversed the trial court's ruling of summary judgment.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed and remanded, finding the plaintiff stated a claim of common law private nuisance upon which relief could be granted and thus summary judgment was not appropriate.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Property Law
No comments:
Post a Comment