 |
studentJD |
|
|
Students Helping Students |
Currently Briefing & Updating |
|
Student Case Briefs, Outlines, Notes and Sample Tests
Terms & Conditions
© 2010 No content replication for monetary use of any kind is allowed without express written permission. In accordance with UCC § 2-316, this product is provided with "no warranties,either express or implied." The information contained is provided "as-is", with "no guarantee of merchantability." |
|
|
Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development, 494 P.2d 700 |
Supreme Court of Arizona |
1972 |
|
Chapter |
28 |
Title |
Nuisance |
|
Page |
556 |
Topic |
Private and Public Nuisance |
|
Quick Notes |
Spur owned cattle feedlots prior to the construction of Webbs nearby residential development. Webb sued Spur, claiming that the feedlots were a public nuisance because of the flies and odor that drifted toward the development.
Feedlot Arg Webbs development is barred by the coming to the nuisance doctrine. Webb Development Arg Spurs LOCATED its feedlot near the outskirts of the city.
Although a feedlot can be enjoined to stop and/or move, the developer can indemnify the feedlot if the developer foreseeably brought the population into the previously agricultural or industrial area.
Reasoning (Not Spurs fault, be he must move the feedlot) o Spur is required to move not because he did anything wrong, but because of a proper and legitimate regard of the courts for the rights and interests of the public.
Court - Not harsh to indemnify developer o It does not seem harsh to require a developer, who has taken advantage of the lesser land values in a rural area as well as the availability of large tracts of land on which to build and develop a new town or city in the area, to indemnify those who are forced to leave as a result. |
||
|
Book Name |
Fundamentals of Modern Property Law: Rabin; Kwall, Kwall. ISBN: 978-1-59941-053-1. |
||
|
Issue |
o Whether Spur may be enjoined? Yes. o Whether Webb is required to indemnify Spur? Yes. |
|
Procedure |
|
|
Trial |
o Judgment permanently enjoining [prohibiting] the Df - Spur, from operating a cattle feedlot near the Pl - Webb |
|
Supreme |
o Affirmed in part (Injunction), Remanded in Part (Damages sustained to Spur). |
|
Facts |
Rules |
Reason |
|
o Pl - Del E. Webb o Df - Spur Industries Area in Question o 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix, Az. What happened? o Defendant owned cattle feedlots prior to the construction of plaintiff's nearby residential development. o Plaintiff sued defendant, claiming that the feedlots were a public nuisance because of the flies and odor that drifted toward the development. o Judgment permanently enjoining [prohibiting] the Df - Spur, from operating a cattle feedlot near the Pl - Webb. Brief History o 1911 - Spur family started farming started. o 1929 Carl Pleasant Damn made water available to property web of the agua Fria River. o 1954 Youngtown Retirement Community Started. o 1956 Spurs developed feedlots. There were 25 other cattle feeding pens within 7 miles. o 1959 Webb began Sun City Development. He bought 20,000 for $750 per acre ($15 million). o 1959 Webb started golf course. o 1960 Spur purchased land in question, for rebuilding and expanding. o 1960 Webb started offering homes 2.5 miles north of Spur. o 1963 Feedlot odors became a problem and parcels became impossible to sell. o Deposition statement indicated that they were going to continue to develop south until they could not SALE any further. o Webb continued to develop south toward the feedlot getting within 500 feet. Webbs Complaint o Public nuisance because of the flies and the odor which were drifting or being blown by the prevailing south to north wind over the southern portion of Sun City. o Alleging 1300 lots in the southwest portion were unfit for development, because of Spurs feedlot. o Spur was feeding between 20K and 30K head of cattle. o Each cow produced 35 to 40 pounds of manure. o Resulting in 30,000 pounds of manure a day. Testimony o 1 million pounds of manure/day |
Trial Court (Shut Down Feed Lot) o Feed pens had become a nuisance to the people who resided in the south part of Webbs development. o Some citizens of Sun City were unable to enjoy the outdoor living which Webb had adversities. o Webb faced sales resistance. o Spur shutdown operation and appealed.
May Spur Be enjoined - Analysis
Private vs Public Nuisance o Generally one degree.
Private Nuisance o 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,
Public Nuisance (entire community or neighborhood) o Public nuisance is one affecting the rights enjoyed by citizens as a part of the public. o To constitute a public nuisance, the nuisance must affect a considerable number of people or an entire community or neighborhood.
Rule Remedy o Where the injury is slight, the remedy for minor inconveniences lies in an action for damages rather than in one for an injunction.
Court It Appears o Most residents in Youngstown would be entitled to damages rather than injunctive relief. o No difficulty in agreeing with Trial courts decision to enjoin.
Public Nuisance Statute 36-601 o The following conditions are specifically declared public nuisances dangerous to the public health: 1. Any condition or place in populous areas which constitutes a breeding place for flies, rodents, mosquitoes and other insects which are capable of carrying and transmitting disease-causing organisms to any person or persons.
Declaring a business a public nuisance o There must be a "populous" area in which people are injured. o A locality and surroundings are of the first importance. o A business which is not per se a public nuisance may become such by being carried on at a place where the health, comfort, or convenience of a populous neighborhood is affected.
Court - Holding May Spur be enjoined? o Spurs operation was an enjoinable public nuisance for the southern portion of Webbs Sun City. o It is clear that Spurs feedlot was both a public and private nuisance to the citizens of Sun City. o Affirmed.
Must Webb Indemnify Spur - Analysis
Public Interest Concerns o Courts of equity may both give and withhold relief in furtherance of the public interest when only private interests are involved. o The granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations of public interest
Lawful Owner Concerns o Courts of equity are concerned with protecting the operator of a lawfully, albeit noxious, business from the result of a knowing and willful encroachment by others near his business.
Coming to the Nuisance Cases o The courts have held that the residential landowner may not have relief if he knowingly came into a neighborhood reserved for industrial or agricultural endeavors and has been damaged thereby. o In such an area plaintiffs cannot complain that legitimate agricultural pursuits are being carried on in the vicinity, nor can plaintiffs, having chosen to build in an agricultural area, complain that the agricultural pursuits carried on in the area depreciate the value of their homes. o With all the advantages of decreased congestion of traffic, smoke, noise, foul air and other annoyances of city life, they must be prepared to take the disadvantages.
Reasons To Live In The Suburbs 1. Taxes, 2. Utilities and 3. Get Away from Congestion.
Feedlot Arg Webbs development is barred by the coming to the nuisance doctrine. Webb Development Arg Spurs LOCATED its feedlot near the outskirts of the city.
Rule o A party cannot justly call upon the law to make that place suitable for his residence which was not so when he selected it. o There are no rigid rules for the law of nuisance. It is elastic.
Reasoning (Not Spurs fault, be he must move the feedlot) o Spur is required to move not because he did anything wrong, but because of a proper and legitimate regard of the courts for the rights and interests of the public.
Court - Not harsh to indemnify developer o It does not seem harsh to require a developer, who has taken advantage of the lesser land values in a rural area as well as the availability of large tracts of land on which to build and develop a new town or city in the area, to indemnify those who are forced to leave as a result.
Holding o We must indemnify Spur for a reasonable amount of the cost of moving or shutting down. o It should be noted that this relief to Spur is limited to a case wherein a developer has, with foreseeability, brought into a previously agricultural or industrial area that population which makes necessary the granting of an injunction against a lawful business and for which the business has not adequate relief.
o Remanded to the trial court for a hearing upon the damages sustained by the defendant Spur as a reasonable and direct result of the granting of the permanent injunction. o Affirmed (Injunction) in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
|
|
|
Rules |
|
o |
|
Class Notes |
|
o |