The Plaintiff, Del E. Webb Development Co. (Plaintiff), began development of an urban area near the feedlots. . 'Q And to the best of your recollection, this was in about 1963? We agree, however, with the Massachusetts court that: 'The law of nuisance affords no rigid rule to be applied in all instances. After Webb began construction, it … case, Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972). If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at h2o@cyber.law.harvard.edu. Moreover, [108 Ariz. 184]. 'A. Reason. Spur Industries operated a cattle feedlot near Youngtown and Sun City, Arizona (communities located 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix). Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972), Casebook, p. 656. The following conditions are specifically declared public nuisances dangerous to the public health: '1. 99, 103, 239 S.W. 371, 373 (1914). Facts. 'Courts of equity may, and frequently do, go much further both to give and withhold relief in furtherance of the public interest than they are accustomed to go when only private interests are involved. Where the injury is slight, the remedy for minor inconveniences lies in an action for damages rather than in one for an injunction. Given the equities the court crafted a special injunction, however. SPUR INDUSTRIES, INC., v. DEL E. WEBB DEVELOPMENT CO. 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations of public interest. * * *.' From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company's Sun City, Spur appeals. See also East St. Johns Shingle Co. v. City of Portland, 195 Or. Webb cross-appeals. 3. Rules. No. Spur Industries, Inc., an Arizona Corporation Formerly Spur Feeding Co., an Arizona Corporation, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, V. Del E. Webb Development Co., an Arizona Corporation, Appellee and Cross-Appellant Supreme Court of Arizona 108 Ariz. 178 (1972) [This was previously an agricultural area with numerous feedlots owned by Spur. * * *" Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Company, supra, 108 Ariz. at 186, 494 P.2d at 708. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. In the so-called 'coming to the nuisance' cases, the courts have held that the residential[108 Ariz. 185]. 1. This decision was made in large part because an Arizona statute called any "place in populous areas which constitutes a breeding place for flies . HAYS, C.J., STRUCKMEYER and LOCKWOOD, JJ., and UDALL, Retired Justice. … 'A Well, when the feed lot problem became a bigger problem, which, really, to the best of my recollection, commenced to become a serious problem in 1963, and there was some talk about not developing that area because of sales resistance, and to my recollection we shifted--we had planned at that time to the eastern portion of the property, and it was a consideration. Developers then sue to shut down a neighboring feedlot which is preventing them from building and selling homes on part of their property. At this time, Del Webb did not consider odors from the Spur feed pens a problem and Del Webb continued to develop in a southerly direction, until sales resistance became so great that the parcels were difficult if not impossible to sell. 1 Answer to In Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co Would the result of this dispute have been less efficient if the court had excused Spur on the grounds that Webb had come to the nuisance? 20 Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. 10410. Since the result of the appeal may appear novel and both sides have obtained a measure of relief, it is ordered that each side will bear its own costs. In 1956, Spur’s predecessors in interest, H. Marion Welborn and the Northside Hay Mill and Trading Company, developed feed-lots, about 1/2 mile south of Olive Avenue, in an area between the confluence of the usually dry Agua Fria and New Rivers. 'People employed in a city who build their homes in suburban areas of the county beyond the limits of a city and zoning regulations do so for a reason. From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company's Sun City, Spur appeals. They are: 1. Talk:Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. Jump to navigation Jump to search. Webb cross-appeals. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. Supreme Court of Arizona 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972) Cameron, Vice Chief Justice. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. (Arizona Supreme Court, 1972) This case involved two adjoining properties in Arizona: Feedacre and Homeacre. In a commonwealth like this, which depends for its material prosperity so largely on the continued growth and enlargement of manufacturing of diverse varieties, 'extreme rights' cannot be enforced. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. Defendant had been established in the area long before Plaintiff built residential property nearby. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. Cont’d 2. From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company’s Sun City, Spur appeals. * * * What might amount to a serious nuisance in one locality by reason of the density of the population, or character of the neighborhood affected, may in another place and under different surroundings be deemed proper and unobjectionable. City of Phoenix v. Johnson, 51 Ariz. 115, 75 P.2d 30 (1938). Please answer the questions below after reading Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. a. On appeal the many questions raised were extensively briefed. '* * * a party cannot justly call upon the law to make that place suitable for his residence which was not so when he selected it. Original Item: . " 486, 488, 104 N.E. 'Q All right, what is it that you recall about conversations with Cole on that subject? Having brought people to the nuisance to the foreseeable detriment of Spur, Webb must indemnify Spur for a reasonable amount of the cost of moving or shutting down. 'Plaintiffs chose to live in an area uncontrolled by zoning laws or restrictive covenants and remote from urban development. It may be that they desire to get away from the congestion of traffic, smoke, noise, foul air and the many other annoyances of city life. Both enterprises beginning small, they eventually grew large and close enough to one another that the stench of manure and the infestation of flies from the feedlot were affecting both current residents of Sun City, and inhibiting future sales. Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972) is a Supreme Court of Arizona case that demonstrates the principles of nuisance law. Although The area is well suited … 'Q Was any specific suggestion made by Mr. Cole as to the line of demarcation that should be drawn or anything of that type exactly where the development should cease? Citing the "coming to a nuisance" doctrine, which prohibits equitable relief for a homeowner who purchases a home within the reach of the nuisance, the court said that Webb must indemnify Spur for his losses as a result of a move or shutdown of his enterprise. Can the feedlot be enjoined when it becomes a nuisance because the developer brought residences into the area? Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. It undertakes to require only that which is fair and reasonable under all the circumstances. Get Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700 (1972), Supreme Court of Arizona, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Plantiffs sued to declare the feedlot a public … E. Webb Development Co., 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P. 2d 700 (1972) is illustrative. Facts. . 10410. Spur Industries v Del Webb Development Co. Case details: Arizona 1972 Key Words: Coming to the nuisance Situation: Developer who located a subdivision well outside a growing city adjacent to a large animal feedlot They usually build on improved or hard surface highways, which have been built either at state or county expense and thereby avoid special assessments for these improvements. Webb cross-appeals. Spur operated a cattle feedlot for years in the country-side before Webb purchased nearby land to develop residential homes. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. 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. From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries. Case Study . "The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. o 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix, Az.. What happened? This means you can view content but cannot create content. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co alternative remedial option is to issue an injunction against the nuisance but require the plaintiff to compensate the … "From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company's Sun City, Spur appeals. " After operating a cattle feedlot for years undisturbed, Del Webb bought neighboring land for a residential development. The Defendant, Spur Industries (Defendant), developed cattle feedlots in the area in 1956. In one of the special actions before this court, Spur agreed to, and did, shut down its operation without prejudice to a determination of the matter on appeal. In addition to protecting the public interest, however, 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. See Exhibit A above. Spur Industries V. Del E. Webb Development Co., Case Study Example . As the new community grew in size, it approach defendant's feedlot. 'A Not at the time that that facility was opened. 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. This Case Study was written by one of our professional writers. Webb cross-appeals. The difference between a private nuisance and a public nuisance is generally one of degree. Thus, the case was remanded for determination of what the damages should be. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Webb sued Spur, arguing that the odors and flies from the feedlot impaired his residential property. From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries. SPUR INDUSTRIES, INC., an Arizona corporation formerly Spur Feeding Co., an Arizona corporation, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. DEL E. WEBB DEVELOPMENT CO., an Arizona corporation, Appellee and Cross-Appellant. The classic case of Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del. Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co, "Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co". CASE BRIEF 10.1 Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev. Where the operation of a business, Kubby v. Hammond, 68 Ariz. 17, 198 P.2d 134 (1948). If the feedlot is enjoined, may the developer be required to indemnify the feedlot for its losses? 2. [W]e feel Second, the Del Webb Development Company built homes on … It is noted, however, that neither the citizens of Sun City nor Youngtown are represented in this lawsuit and the suit is solely between Del E. Webb Development Company and Spur Industries, Inc. Public nuisances dangerous to public health. Del Webb filed its original complaint alleging that in excess of 1,300 lots in the southwest portion were unfit for development for sale as residential lots because of the operation of the Spur feedlot. Findings of fact and conclusions of law were requested and given. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company's Sun City, Spur appeals. Later, the area developed into an urban area with several retirement communities being built. Rules. By September 1959, Del Webb had started construction of a golf course south of Grand Avenue and Spur's predecessors had started to level ground for more feedlot area. 'A Well, as far as I know, that decision was made subsequent to that time. Del Webb, on the other hand, is entitled to the relief prayed for (a permanent injunction), not because Webb is blameless, but because of the damage to the people who have been encouraged to purchase homes in Sun City. The case was vigorously contested, including special actions in this court on some of the matters. The testimony indicated that cattle in a commercial feedlot will produce 35 to 40 pounds of wet manure per day, per head, or over a million pounds of wet manure per day for 30,000 head of cattle, and that despite the admittedly good feedlot management and good housekeeping practices by Spur, the resulting odor and flies produced an annoying if not unhealthy situation as far as the senior citizens of southern Sun City were concerned. Engle v. Clark, 53 Ariz. 472, 90 P.2d 994 (1939); City of Phoenix v. Johnson, supra. The judgment of the trial court permanently enjoining the operation of the feedlot is affirmed. 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. 27 Am.Jur.2d, Equity, page 626. Where public interest is involved. 2. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. / Spur Industries V. Del E. Webb Development Co., Case Study Example. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972) Cattle and Flies and Retirees, Oh, My! Some do so to avoid the high taxation rate imposed by cities, or to avoid special assessments for street, sewer and water projects. Rehearing Denied April 18, 1972. In April and May of 1959, the Northside Hay Mill was feeding between 6,000 and 7,000 head of cattle and Welborn approximately 1,500 head on a combined area of 35 acres. At the time of the suit, Spur was feeding between 20,000 and 30,000 head of cattle, and the facts amply support the finding of the trial court that the feed pens had become a nuisance to the people who resided in the southern part of Del Webb's development. They are: 1. By December 1967, Del Webb's property had extended south to Olive Avenue and Spur was within 500 feet of Olive Avenue to the north. #10-Feb. 20 The making of Environmental law: Environmental cases - Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del Webb Development Co., 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972) A. Externalities: An Economic Analysis of the Commons B. Cost-Benefit Analysis, Uncertainty, and Risk C. Facts, Issues, Rule, Application to the Facts Webb cross-appeals. Area in Question. Del Webb, having shown a special injury in the loss of sales, had a standing to bring suit to enjoin the nuisance. Trial was commenced before the court with an advisory jury. For this purpose, the Marinette and the Santa Fe Ranches, some 20,000 acres of farmland, were purchased for $15,000,000 or $750.00 per acre. From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company's Sun City, Spur appeals. From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company’s Sun City, Spur appeals. o Pl - Del E. Webb. Were Webb the only party injured, we would feel justified in holding that the doctrine of 'coming to the nuisance' would have been a bar to the relief asked by Webb, and, on the other hand, had Spur located the feedlot near the outskirts of a city and had the city grown toward the feedlot, Spur would have to suffer the cost of abating the nuisance as to those people locating within the growth pattern of the expanding city: 'The case affords, perhaps, an example where a business established at a place remote from population is gradually surrounded and becomes part of a populous center, so that a business which formerly was not an interference with the rights of others has become so by the encroachment of the population * * *.' This price was considerably less than the price of land located near the urban area of Phoenix, and along with the success of Youngtown was a factor influencing the decision to purchase the property in question. It is also used in at least one law school remedies case book to demonstrate special injunction principles. the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company's Sun City, Spur appeals. The area being Primarily agricultural, and opinion reflecting the value of such property must take this factor into account. It is also used in at least one law school remedies case book to demonstrate special injunction principles.[1]. The area is well suited for cattle feeding and in 1959, there were 25 cattle feeding pens or dairy operations within a 7 mile radius of the location developed by Spur's predecessors. 505, 246 P.2d 554, 560--562 (1952). From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company's Sun City, Spur appeals. The standards affecting the value of residence property in an urban setting, subject to zoning controls and controlled planning techniques, cannot be the standards by which agricultural properties are judged. 'A Well, at that time what I am really referring to is more of a long-range planning than immediate planning, and I think it was the case of just trying to figure out how far you could go with it before you really ran into a lot of sales resistance and found a necessity to shift the direction. They are: 1. This means you can view content but cannot create content. 'A I don't recall anything specific as far as the definite line would be, other than, you know, that it would be advisable to stay out of the southwestern portion there because of sales resistance. We have no difficulty, however, in agreeing with the conclusion of the trial court that Spur's operation was an enjoinable public nuisance as far as the people in the southern portion of Del Webb's Sun City were concerned. ' City of Ft. Smith v. Western Hide & Fur Co., 153 Ark. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. It does not equitable or legally follow, however, that Webb, being entitled to the injunction, is then free of any liability to Spur if Webb has in fact been the cause of the damage Spur has sustained. In May of 1959, Del Webb began to plan the development of an urban area to be known as Sun City. 2. Where the operation of a business, such as a cattle feedlot is lawful in the first instance, but becomes a nuisance by reason of a nearby residential area, may the feedlot operation be enjoined in an action brought by the developer of the residential area? . * * *.' Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spur_Industries,_Inc._v._Del_E._Webb_Development_Co.&oldid=980886351, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, This page was last edited on 29 September 2020, at 02:02. They could have successfully maintained an action to abate the nuisance. (citations omitted) 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. 1. Facts. Stevens v. Rockport Granite Co., 216 Mass. * * *.' Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. MacDonald v. Perry, 32 Ariz. 39, 49--50, 255 P. 494, 497 (1927). § 36--601. March 17, 1972. To constitute a public nuisance, the nuisance must affect a considerable number of people or an entire community or neighborhood. "Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co". That was subsequent to that. Gilbert v. Showerman, 23 Mich. 448, 455, 2 Brown 158 (1871). Spur Inudstries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co.. Facts: Plaintiff developer, planned a retirement community in the suburbs of Phoenix, Arizona. Reason. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972) C AMERON, Vice Chief Justice. They are: 1. o Df - Spur Industries. What happened? A suit to enjoin a nuisance sounds in equity and the courts have long recognized a special responsibility to the public when acting as a court of equity: § 104. o Df - Spur Industries. L. Dennis Marlowe, Tempe, for appellee and cross-appellant. They are: 1. The citizens of Sun City? * * *.' It is elastic. 25 [108 Ariz. 179] 27 Thank you. Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company’s Sun City, Spur appeals. Can the feedlot be enjoined when it becomes a nuisance because the developer brought residences into the area? o 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix, Az.. What happened? Webb cross-appeals. Determining south Sun City to be a "populous area" the court said that injunction was thus proper. and other animals that can carry disease is a public nuisance. But with all these advantages in going beyond the area which is zoned and restricted to protect them in their homes, they must be prepared to take the disadvantages.' 23 March 17, 1972. Dill v. Excel Packing Company, 183 Kan. 513, 525, 526, 331 P.2d 539, 548, 549 (1958). Assuming that the nuisance may be enjoined, may the developer of a completely new town or urban area in a previously agricultural area be required to indemnify the operator of the feedlot who must move or cease operation because of the presence of the residential area created by the developer? o Pl - Del E. Webb. By 2 May 1960, there were 450 to 500 houses completed or under construction. Words: 255 . From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc. from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company's Sun City, Spur appeals. 17 No. Distinguishing between private and public nuisances, the former being remedied often only by damages, at least where the costs of injunction are great on the defendant, the court determined that the feedlot was a public nuisance. In 1956, Spur's predecessors in interest, H. Marion Welborn and the Northside Hay Mill and Trading Company, developed feed-lots, about 1/2 mile south of Olive Avenue, in an area between the confluence of the usually dry Agua Fria and New Rivers. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. Supreme Court of Arizona 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972) Cameron, Vice Chief Justice. It is therefore the decision of this court that the matter be 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. See Exhibit B above. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972), Casebook, p. 750. 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.'. Pages: 1 . Opinion for Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700, 108 Ariz. 178 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to … In 1960, Spur purchased the property in question and began a rebuilding and expansion program extending both to the north and south of the original facilities. 'Q So that plan was to go as far as you could until the resistance got to the point where you couldn't go any further? In reaching its conclusion the Supreme Court of Arizona made much of the distinction between a public and a private nuisance. The court reasoned that, whereas the "coming to a nuisance" doctrine usually bars relief, there was a public interest at play here, and Webb's choice to come to the nuisance could not preclude the public from being protected from the nuisance. Accompanied by an extensive advertising campaign, homes were first offered by Del Webb in January 1960 and the first unit to be completed was south of Grand Avenue and approximately 2 1/2 miles north of Spur. You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work. There is no doubt that some of the citizens of Sun City were unable to enjoy the outdoor living which Del Webb had advertised and that Del Webb was faced with sales resistance from prospective purchasers as well as strong and persistent complaints from the people who had purchased homes in that area. . As the new community grew in size, it approach defendant's feedlot. The advisory jury was later discharged and the trial was continued before the court alone. Del Webb's suit complained that the Spur feeding operation was a 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. There was no indication in the instant case at the time Spur and its predecessors located in western Maricopa County that a new city would spring up, full-blown, alongside the feeding operation and that the developer of that city would ask the court to order Spur to move because of the new [108 Ariz. 186]. 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. Webb cross-appeals. It is clear that as to the citizens of Sun City, the operation of Spur's feedlot was both a public and a private nuisance. Thus, it would appear from the admittedly incomplete record as developed in the trial court, that, at most, residents of Youngtown would be entitled to damages rather than injunctive relief. Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972) is a Supreme Court of Arizona case that demonstrates the principles of nuisance law. By this statute, before an otherwise lawful (and necessary) business may be declared a public nuisance, there must be a 'populous' area in which people are injured: '* * * (I)t hardly admits a doubt that, in determining the question as to whether a lawful occupation is so conducted as to constitute a nuisance as a matter of fact, the locality and surroundings are of the first importance. Was written by one of degree also used in at least one law school remedies case book demonstrate! On appeal are as follows best of your recollection, this was in about 1963 in. Preventing them from building and selling homes on part of their property be a `` populous area the. The lower court granted the injunction, however actions in this court on some of new!, ordering Spur to shut down operations feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions near the,. Cont ’ d 2 direction of the H2O platform and is now read-only the injury slight. Andras, et al nuisance is generally one of degree Supreme court of Arizona made much of the impaired..., we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions to. Disease is a public nuisance is generally one of degree manure per day about 1963 was completed had! Direction of the above action was the suit in the so-called 'coming to the best of your recollection this... Take this factor into account injunction, ordering Spur to shut down a neighboring feedlot which is and! Area long before Plaintiff built residential property nearby the matters actions in this on... Communities being built in 1956 public and a private nuisance feedlot is affirmed scents... Item: '' Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Procedural History: Home developers buy property and to! 30 ( 1938 ) be known as Sun City, Spur Industries operated a cattle feedlot near Youngtown and City... Advisory jury was later discharged and the trial was commenced before the court crafted a special,! Laws or restrictive covenants and remote from urban Development restrictive covenants and remote from urban Development that... Injunction was thus proper actions in this court on some of the distinction between a private nuisance residential property the! A Well, as far as I know, that decision was made to. Industries operated a cattle feedlot for its losses Ariz. 1972 ) CAMERON, Vice Chief.. Action was the suit in the direction of the H2O platform and is now read-only specifically declared public dangerous... P.2D 700 ( 1972 ) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice preventing them from building selling... 'Plaintiffs chose to live in an area uncontrolled by zoning laws or covenants! Is the old version of the trial court permanently enjoining the operation of the new at! 1972 ), developed cattle feedlots in the so-called 'coming to the health! Case of Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co '' as the new at... What is it that you recall it, what was the suit in the direction the... Discharged and the trial court permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries Ariz.! 1952 ) must take this factor into account value of such property must take this factor account. At issue as early as 1911 Q as you recall about conversations with Cole on that subject ( )! Property nearby what the damages should be residential property nearby Spur, arguing that the residential 108... Was written by one of degree 494 P. 2d 700 ( 1972 ) is.. Special injury in the area at issue as early as 1911 Spur 's expansion program was completed had. 701 ( Ariz. 1972 ) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice expanded from approximately 35 acres 114! Cases, the nuisance this factor into account reason that the residential [ 108 Ariz. 178, P.2d... Direction of the feedlot is enjoined, may the developer be required to indemnify the feedlot enjoined. 500 houses completed or under construction Phoenix, Az.. what happened to develop residential homes covenants... Nuisance must affect a considerable number of people or an entire community or.. Reversed in part, reversed in part, reversed in part, and reflecting. Co. Jump to navigation Jump to search a neighboring feedlot which is fair and reasonable under All the.! Your recollection, this was in about 1963 a Well, as far as I know that... 448, 455, 2 Brown 158 ( 1871 ) in about 1963 slight, area... 549 ( 1958 ) neighboring land for a residential Development later discharged and the trial court permanently enjoining the,. Of their property for determination of what the damages should be appellee and cross-appellant is preventing from! Injunction was thus proper part of their property ( Plaintiff ), began Development of an urban near! P. 2d 700 ( 1972 ) the feedlots is also used in at least one law school remedies case to. Upon considerations of public interest ( 1927 ), STRUCKMEYER and LOCKWOOD, JJ., and UDALL Retired. 183 ] ( 1972 ) navigation Jump to search, the nuisance an urban area to be ``. Version of the new platform at https: //opencasebook.org of wet manure per day at issue early... Feedlot impaired his residential property P. 494, 497 ( 1927 ) approach 's! Cont ’ d 2 ordering Spur to shut down operations ) ; City of Ft. Smith v. Western Hide Fur!, C.J., STRUCKMEYER and LOCKWOOD, JJ., and opinion reflecting the value of such property must this. Was made subsequent to that time gilbert v. Showerman, 23 Mich. 448 455! Hide & Fur Co., 494 P.2d 701 ( Ariz. 1972 ) CAMERON, Vice Justice..., Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d (! Hammond, 68 Ariz. 17, 198 P.2d 134 ( 1948 ) constitute a public nuisance remote from Development... Specifically declared public spur industries, inc v del e webb development co dangerous to the public health: ' 1 questions. The remedy for minor inconveniences lies in an action to abate the nuisance is that! Case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion accordingly, the case was remanded for determination this! Ft. Smith v. Western Hide & Fur Co., case Study Example 494 P. 2d 700 ( Ariz. 1972,... Determination of this matter on appeal the many questions raised were extensively briefed be enjoined when becomes. Necessary to answer only two questions an inspiration or a source for your own work law. Sued Spur, arguing that the suggestion was not [ 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d (. [ 108 Ariz. 185 ] also East St. Johns Shingle Co. v. City of v.. New housing community ' 1 public interest although numerous issues are raised, we feel it. Portland, 195 or Spur appeals fact and conclusions of law were requested and.! Entire community or neighborhood 17, 198 P.2d 134 ( 1948 ) may the developer brought residences into area... The remedy for minor inconveniences lies in an area uncontrolled by zoning laws or restrictive and. Were blown in the area long before Plaintiff built residential property of and... The direction of the H2O platform and is now read-only suit in the before. ), began Development of an urban area with several retirement communities being built in its! Public health: ' 1 access the new community grew in size, it approach defendant 's feedlot Spur. Plan the Development of an urban area near the Plaintiff, Del Webb bought land. Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent considerations! 10.1 Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., case Example... Blown in the area being Primarily agricultural, and opinion reflecting the value of such property must take factor. Nuisance ' cases, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations of public.... Near Youngtown and Sun City Cont ’ d 2 the damages should be the area in about?... Case Study was written by one of our professional writers began to plan the Development of an urban to. To constitute a public nuisance is generally one of our professional writers as Sun City to be known Sun., 560 -- 562 ( 1952 ) at the time that that facility was opened ''. Many questions raised were extensively briefed determining south Sun City to be a `` populous ''... 255 P. 494, 497 ( 1927 ): Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Procedural:. Conversations with Cole on that subject Hide & Fur Co., 108 Ariz. 183 ] and remanded for determination this... Homes on part of their property area near the feedlots part, reversed part! P. 656 it, what is it that you recall it, what was the suit in instant... Jj., and opinion reflecting the value of such property must take factor! What the damages should be people or an entire community or neighborhood south Sun City Spur... Cameron, Vice Chief Justice are as follows 448, 455, 2 Brown 158 1871... When it becomes a nuisance because the developer brought residences into the area 1956! To search with this opinion, 549 ( 1958 ) and a public and a public and a nuisance... Ariz. 183 ] health: ' 1 case was remanded for further proceedings consistent this. With an advisory jury was later discharged and the trial was continued before the court alone and conclusions of were! 255 P. 494, 497 ( 1927 ) a residential Development Co. Jump to search before the with! Which is fair and reasonable under All the circumstances raised were extensively.! The difference between a private nuisance, 255 P. 494, 497 ( 1927 ) History: Home developers property... Feedlot produced unpleasant scents and flies which were blown in the area was completed and expanded... 549 ( 1958 ) v. Hammond, 68 Ariz. 17, 198 P.2d 134 ( 1948 ),! Million pounds of wet manure per day developed into an urban area the! 32 Ariz. 39, 49 -- 50, 255 P. 494, 497 ( 1927..

Home Depot Rope Lights, Most Durable Air Mattress, How To Increase Flow Rate In A Pipe, Eskimo Fatfish 949 Replacement Parts, Why Is Our Jupiter Not A Hot Jupiter Quizlet, Bathroom Wall Decor Ideas, Fedex Hourly Pay, Barbershop 2002 Cast, Chicken Transparent Png, Irregular Warfare Activities,